Singaporeans Kwik Chong Oei [not his real name] and Tee Seong Joon [not his real name] were deported by a neighbouring country last month after completing a short prison term for immigration offences. They were received by our own police and quickly put behind bars again.
Kwik and Tee are leading members of the Red Iron Gang which had been planning bank and goldsmith robberies for nearly 15 years. They had been casing several banks and gold shops in the late 1990s, and then decided to cross over to a third country to learn from the Preto Pantano Gang how to plant explosives and break safes. The Red Iron Gang considered themselves affiliates with the Preto Pantano.
When the third leading member of the Red Iron, “Popcorn” Soh, was arrested by police in 2003 for planning a break-in at a diamond dealer’s shop, Kwik and Tee looked into the possibility of sending an envelope of anthrax to the police headquarters as revenge.
Fortunately, none of these deeds were carried out. No bank has been robbed.
Soh continues to be in detention. Kwik and Tee have now been put behind bars. A ministry statement having been published, there is no need for a trial.
You may have guessed by now that the above is fictitious. Nonetheless, if it had been true, would you have wholeheartedly agreed that there was no need for a fair trial?
* * * * *
Yet, in what way is the fictional story different from this statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs?
Two individuals were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for their involvement in terrorism-related activities. They are Abd Rahim bin Abdul Rahman (Abd Rahim) and Husaini bin Ismail (Husaini), who were issued Orders of Detention (ODs) under the ISA in Mar 2012 and Jun 2012, respectively.
2. Abd Rahim and Husaini were senior members of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist organisation. They had undergone terrorist training in Afghanistan with the Al-Qaeda terrorist organisation in 1999/2000. They had also been actively involved in reconnoitring several potential local and foreign targets in Singapore for the purpose of a terrorist attack. Both men had fled Singapore in Dec 2001 soon after the commencement of the security operation against the JI and took refuge overseas. While on the run, Husaini was involved in the plot led by Singapore JI leader Mas Selamat bin Kastari to hijack an airplane destined for Singapore and crash it into Changi Airport in Jan 2002, to retaliate against the disruption of the Singapore JI network.
3. Abd Rahim was arrested in Malaysia in Feb 2012 and was deported to Singapore. Husaini was arrested in Indonesia in Jun 2009 and was imprisoned for immigration offences. Upon the completion of his jail term in May 2012, Husaini was deported to Singapore.
For slightly over a decade, the mere word “terrorism” creates such panic in us that we suspend our better judgement and our sense of fairness. Once hurled at someone by authorities, it sticks to him like flypaper on forehead. We consider it unpatriotic, even immoral, to question the labelling or the authorities’ response. Once more, the Internal Security Act (ISA) is used with hardly a demurral.
It seems not to trouble us that we will detain Abd Rahim and Husaini at the government’s leisure, with no need to prove any fact, and indefinitely.
Why not an open trial like any other? If the government has evidence, as the ministry’s statement suggests it has, why not present it in court?
One common argument is that the evidence had been collected through clandestine intelligence, and to reveal the evidence would give away the undercover operations and their sources. But consider this: the nefarious deeds that Abd Rahim and Husaini are alleged to have performed are more than a decade old. If the undercover operatives have not been pulled out by now, they should be. If evidence had been obtained through electronic surveillance or secret informants, it is extremely unlikely that these sources are relevant anymore. And anyway there are established judicial procedures to deal with sensitive information.
Even the ministry’s statement makes no claim that these men were planning anything current that poses an imminent, widespread danger, that might in extremis justify (as some might argue) a suspension of law for a brief period. It is wrong, plain and simple, to detain them without trial.
* * * * *
The full version of the ministry’s statement referenced above also informs the public that three individuals have been released and 17 others, who had previously been released, has had their restriction orders lifted.
As far as I know, the 17 have not spoken publicly about their experience. Why not? Has there been a gag order?
Why is there a need for a gag order?
It is important for these three and seventeen to start speaking about their activities, if any, that led to their detention. The public has a right to know what happened and what was done to them in the name of our State. We should have had that right honoured through a fair and open trial in the very first place, but better late — and in the form of a public discussion — than never. How were they treated, for example, while behind bars?
* * * * *
Somewhat related, is this rather breathless TED talk given by Philip Zimbardo “On the psychology of evil” (total length 23 minutes). He explains how easy it is for ordinary people to slip into doing bad things. We often point to the culpability of the individual for doing bad; sometimes we recognise that the contextual situation has a role to play. But seldom, Zimbardo points out, do we see that it is the intoxication of power that lies at the root of it. “Evil is the exercise of power to intentionally harm people psychologically, to hurt people physically, to destroy people morally . . . and to commit crimes against humanity.” (2 min 40 secs)
And all of us who assent to the exercise of such power share in the responsibility too. But it also means that we have it in us, in each of us, to withdraw that assent and put a stop to evil.