1987: Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy 30 Years On (Second Edition)

Preface

The idea for this book had been brewing for several years among some survivors of the infamous 1987 Marxist conspiracy when 22 people were arrested and imprisoned under the Internal Security Act (ISA). They were aware that many personal experiences and insights into the incident — from former detainees and people who supported them, including people from the different communities closely associated with them — were known only to their close friends. They felt that these stories should be made known to a wider audience.

The interest shown at the screening of 1987: Untracing the Conspiracy, a film featuring several former detainees recollecting the first 30 days of their arrests by Jason Soo at the end of 2015 added to their conviction that these stories need to be told. To this day, the film continues to attract a sizeable audience at The Projector. Many pointed questions were asked after each screening.

So what better way to share these stories than to mark the 30th anniversary of Operation Spectrum with the publication of this book!

We are very grateful that many people whom we approached agreed to write about what happened and were generous with their time. We thank them for making the difficult decision to put aside their fears and anguish to record their stories in writing.

We thank Teo Yeow Seng and other friends for permission to reproduce their photographs that record the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum and Asia Center for the Progress of Peoples for the photographs on pages 91, 216, 217, 218 and 220 that record the support in Hong Kong for the release of the detainees. And we are grateful to all other friends who have made it possible to publish this book.

We hope these stories can bring awareness to the impact the ISA has on law-abiding citizens. We hope readers will see why unjust laws need to be abolished.

The editorial team

October 2017

Introduction

The arrest of 16 people in the early hours of 21 May 1987 shocked the nation. Codenamed Operation Spectrum, the arrests were touted as a national security exercise and made under the Internal Security Act (ISA) even though not a single weapon or explosive was seized from any one of them. As if 16 arrests at dawn in one fell swoop were not sufficient to terrify the population, another six were detained a month later. These six had merely spoken out or campaigned against the first arrests.

The allegations against the detainees were bizarre. They were accused of having communist links¹ and later making use of lawful and registered organisations (both political and non-political), to further their aim of establishing a Marxist state. The government claimed that many of them had also made use of the Roman Catholic Church to subvert the existing social and political system in Singapore, using communist united front tactics, with a view to establish a Marxist state. Strangely, under continuous interrogations and torture, many of the detainees were ultimately forced to admit that they were unwittingly made use of by friends. And even stranger was the subsequent revelation by the government that it was unhappy with the four Catholic priests and not those 16 arrested.

In the days, weeks and months following the arrests, the government was unexpectedly kept busy rebutting statements and claims of ill treatment of prisoners from human rights organisations, Church, government and individuals outside Singapore and the international media. Friends of the prisoners had immediately set up a network around the world to rebut the government’s allegations, testify to the good character of the prisoners and claim that they were subjected to physical and mental torture. Singapore embassies and offices of the Singapore Airlines were inundated with queries and protests. Congress of the United States, the Diet of Japan and the European Union were kept informed of the arrests. Singapore ambassadors and ministers were compelled to answer questions on the government’s treatment of the prisoners and the use of detention without trial which is contrary to the rule of law in civilised countries.

The prisoners were released in stages but not before they were forced to appear on television for rehearsed interviews. By the end of December 1987, all were released except Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan.

The ISA empowers the government to arrest and imprison people indefinitely and without any trial. History has shown that innocent people — students, university lecturers, medical doctors, journalists, lawyers and trade unionists had been imprisoned for years without trial. Several were detained for periods longer than life sentences. The government’s refusal to release Vincent Cheng in December 1987 therefore caused grave unease among those who were released. This, coupled with the government’s relentless accusations of wrongdoings and denial that the detainees were ill treated, led to the issue of a joint public statement.

Joint Statement and re-arrests

On 18 April 1988, nine released prisoners issued a statement rebutting the government’s allegations against them and confirming that they had suffered ill treatment. Eight of them were immediately re-arrested the next day. The ninth, Tang Fong Har who was in England, did not return to Singapore but embarked on a campaign to free her friends. She is today living in Hong Kong as a political exile.

The re-arrests in 1988 ended the hope of release for Vincent Cheng. It also led to the arrests of Francis Seow and Patrick Seong, two prominent lawyers who were acting for many of the prisoners. It seemed incredible that Singapore, a developed country could abuse lawyers so openly.

Left with the prospect of indefinite detention, several prisoners turned to the Supreme Court for relief. The court failed them. Its half-hearted judgment on 8 December 1988 may have given hope to future generations of Singaporeans but it dealt a hefty blow to the prisoners. They were ordered to be released on a technical ground but were promptly re-arrested. They had to commence legal proceedings all over again. The government then hurriedly amended the laws such that judicial review for ISA cases and appeal to the Privy Council were abolished with retrospective effect.

By June 1990, everyone, including Vincent Cheng was released. They were all subjected to severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, assembly, free speech and expression for many years.

Picking up the pieces

The released prisoners went about their lives quietly for two decades. Except for a few, they returned to the professions before their arrests. Vincent Cheng was the hardest hit. He lost his job as the executive secretary of the Archdiocesan Justice and Peace Commission which was shut down soon after the arrests in May 1987. Luckily his resourcefulness and intelligence led him to embark on a new career as a natural health care practitioner. Reflexology, a skill he acquired from books while he was in prison became handy.

Several of those released left Singapore for work or further education, at least for several years if not for good. Those who remained made good the years they lost in prison. More importantly, they kept in touch with one another. They occasionally remembered the anniversaries of 21 May 1987. They got together with friends and relatives on several of these anniversaries for meals, renewed their friendship and sang a song or two for old times’ sake.

On the 10th anniversary, friends and relatives came together for lunch at The Vines in Thomson Road. A small booklet of letters from prison was distributed to those who attended. Busy with work, the 15th anniversary was forgotten. When the 20th anniversary (2007) approached, several of the former prisoners decided to discuss and reflect on what happened in 1987. They invited the alleged leader of the conspiracy, Tan Wah Piow and a few concerned friends to a weekend retreat in Johor. It was a private gathering to trash out 1987 and exchange experiences. For the first time, a soul-searching discussion and analysis took place.

Awakening

In May 2009, several young Singaporeans held a protest calling for the abolition of the ISA at Hong Lim Park. It was the 22nd year of 21 May 1987. Remembering 22 Singapore Victims of ISA was attended by several former detainees. They quietly observed the protest. The young people knew who they were but did not speak to them. It was good to see them organise the event.²

That protest had a great impact on the ISA survivors. They realised that Singaporeans were curious about the past and it was perhaps time for them to tell their story.

The following year, Function 8 was incorporated as a social enterprise and Teo Soh Lung’s prison memoir, Beyond the Blue Gate was published.

In 2012, Function 8 in collaboration with MARUAH, a human rights organisation, commemorated the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum at Hong Lim Park. They put up an exhibition of various objects, artworks and constructed mock prison cells and interrogation room to give the public an idea of what it is like to be in prison. The event was called That We May Dream Again, Remembering the 1987 ‘Marxist Conspiracy’.

In March 2015, Roman Catholic Archbishop William Goh in his address to a crowd of 5000 Catholics, including 40 priests³ at a special mass for former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, referred to the arrest of 22 people in 1987 as a dark period in the Church’s history. He was also reported as having said:

I think it is important for us to move on and to forgive, and most of all to continue to build the country. There’s no point to go back to the past, trying to lick our wounds because it will not help in nation building... And as Christians all the more we should forgive and forget...⁴

The archbishop is wrong to advise that it is pointless to go back to the past. It is not helpful to add that to go back to the past is to lick our wounds.

To this day, the Catholic Church has not made any attempt to investigate the truth about the government’s serious allegations against her church workers, volunteers and priests. Will silence and inaction light up the dark period in the Church’s history? Will this dark period go away if the Church does nothing? Will the ghost of the past live to haunt us?

While we do not deny that the Church was also a victim of state violence in 1987, when Archbishop Gregory Yong, not being a politician, succumbed under pressure at the Istana, she can emulate the example set by Bishop Desmond Tutu who led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa in the 1990s. As we wait for the Church to take steps to be reconciled with the Catholic victims of Operation Spectrum, we are exceedingly grateful for the essays of Fr Patrick Goh and Edgar D’Souza. Their stories shed much light on the exemplary role of the Church before Operation Spectrum, which regrettably earned the displeasure of the authorities and met the full force of their suppression.

Operation Spectrum was a clumsy but successful attack on a re-emerging civil society. It was a multi-pronged attack that wiped out student activism, destroyed or crippled several legitimate organisations and one professional body — The Law Society of Singapore.

It is our hope that with this publication, Singaporeans will know what actually happened in 1987 and decide for themselves if there was a national security threat that necessitated the mounting of Operation Spectrum and the arrest of 22 people and two of their lawyers.

Teo Soh Lung

October 2017

Notes:

The Straits Times, 22 May 1987 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j604lzFjFDY — Remembering 22 Singapore Victims of ISA, accessed on 21 March 2017 »

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/archbishop-goh-mr-lee-kuan-yew-did-what-he-thought-was-best-for-the-country, accessed on 21 March 2017 »

ibid »

1

SPEAKING UP

None of us decided in advance that we wanted to go to jail. We simply did certain things which we had to do and which it seemed proper to do; nothing more, nor less. If it is foolish to insist on living in harmony with one’s conscience, so be it.

— Vaclav Havel

Writer, philosopher, political dissident and politician who served as the last president of Czechoslovakia and then the first president of the Czech Republic

Instant Statutory Declaration

Chew Kheng Chuan (KC Chew) is an independent consultant in philanthropy, arising from his career as a fundraiser for the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University between 2003-2012. He is President of the Harvard University Association of Alumni in Singapore. He is also chairman of The Substation Limited, an independent arts organisation. He was the first Singaporean admitted to Harvard College in 1978, graduating with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Studies in 1982.

You know what they say ISD now stands for? DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police) SK Tan of the ISD remarked to me on April 19, 1988, not without some amusement, Instant Statutory Declaration!

Iwas arrested under the ISA the first time on 20 June 1987. After one month of being held, I was served a one-year detention order. However, in September 1987, after three months of detention, I was released — my detention order was suspended and I was served a restriction order — restricting my speech, movement, and my right to join any organisation. I could only travel abroad or participate in any organisation with the expressed permission of the Internal Security Department (ISD).

On April 18, 1988 we released the Statement of Ex-Detainees of Operation Spectrum to the foreign press in Singapore. On a slightly-mischievous nod to the failings of the local press — all seemingly un-independent mouthpieces of the government — the release to them was delayed until after they worriedly pleaded to receive their copies of the press statement.

The reaction of the government was swift. Eight of the signatories of the Statement — a statement essentially declaring their innocence of any intended subversion — were immediately re-arrested. The ninth signatory, our friend Tang Fong Har was not re-arrested only because she was out of the country at that time. And she has since, grievously — gone into political self-exile from that time and has not been able to return to Singapore in 30 years.

The other ex-detainees who did not sign the statement for fear precisely of this consequence of re-arrest — were all rounded up by the ISD for questioning.

Thus it was that I found myself back at the ISD Headquarters at Phoenix Park, rather than back again at Whitley Road Detention Centre, facing an intense barrage of questioning by DD(O) [Deputy Director Operations] Sim Poh Heng and his ISD officers.

They wanted to know how our statement came about. Who initiated it? Details of our meetings, what actions I had taken after the statement was drafted, how did I help disseminate the statement to the foreign media, why was the statement drafted, who drafted the statement? I had to write all this down in a statement, and they wanted me to sign a statutory declaration (SD, what in other places one calls an affidavit) stating certain things they wanted me to declare. The grilling went on for hours. And after that, the drafting of the SD began. And the critical thing they wanted me to state in my SD was that NOT once was I assaulted by the ISD in my earlier arrest and detention. This was expressly to contradict the point made in the public Statement of the ex-detainees that Most of us were hit hard in the face, some of us for not less than 50 times, while others were assaulted on other parts of the body, during the first three days of interrogation.

This was their plan to discredit our Statement. They wanted every detainee or ex-detainee to submit an SD saying he or she was NOT physically hit or assaulted. Then when you read all of them together — hey presto! No one was ever hit! If not a single person said that they were hit — then obviously the Statement of the ex-detainees was a falsehood.

But the trouble was — I was slapped and assaulted. Very, very hard. On my face mostly, but also on my chest and my back. And about 50 times. I kept count. My mouth bled. I was hit with the full force and weight of my assailant’s body directed to his hand. It was their palms or backhand which contacted my face or body, not the fists. Had it been their fists, I am sure my bones in my face, my jaw, or my ribs, would have been broken by the force of the assaults. It would have been difficult to explain to the doctor if it needed medical attention.

But, I was told that day on 19 April that I had to state in my SD that I was not physically assaulted at all. I was asked to produce alternative facts 29 years before Donald Trump’s team invented the term. And the person who asked me to say that I was not hit was none other than the person who carried out most of the assaults on me during my detention.

I could not agree to it. I was hit when I was interrogated after my arrest in June the year before. Not hit once but 50 times, for god’s sake! How can I declare in an SD that I was not? It was an impasse. I did not have any trouble giving an honest account of the events that transpired leading up to the ex-detainees deciding to write the Statement — I don’t remember much of the details now, 29 years later. But that one point of their outrageous insistence of saying I was not physically hit was simply unacceptable.

Finally, Sim Poh Heng said to me point blank, KC, if you don’t sign the SD (stating that I was not assaulted), I’m going to pull you in (that is, arrest me)! Once you’re inside, you’ll sign it — but it’ll be too late. And you know it will take a long time for you to get out! It was said with a deadly seriousness, with great menace but no venom. The logic of the threat was impeccable. It punctured my resistance. It felt like the cold steel of an unsentimental knife against my throat, pressed by a hoodlum.

This was what the crushing might of the State felt like. I was fighting a tank armed with a toothpick. I knew I was defeated. OK, I said ruefully, I will sign the SD.

The SD was prepared with a selection of the statements that I have made. The critical point — the vital lie — that I was not hit was there. It had taken the ISD just eight hours of browbeating and ultimately the threat of arrest to extract it. I did not for a moment consider that it might have been an empty bluff. The metaphorical gun was put to my head. The metaphorical hammer was cocked. I was fucked.

When the SD was ready I was to sign it before a Commissioner of Oaths. I was led to another room in the ISD HQ complex. I entered a room where there was a coffee table and two chairs. I seem to remember that it was a windowless room, or they were hidden behind floor-to-ceiling heavy black curtains that covered the walls. The lights and the air-conditioning was on. A man — I think he was wearing a black suit — sat nervously in one chair. On the coffee table between the two chairs was the SD, perhaps only two or three pages in all. I was ushered in wordlessly by one of the ISD officers to the room. Then he left and closed the door behind him. I sat down on the chair opposite this very quiet man. I gathered he was a Commissioner of Oaths, where from I know not. He did not introduce himself. He asked me hopefully, Are you ready to sign? I looked at him straight into his eyes, balefully, and did not say a word. He averted his eyes and cast them down. I did not move to sign the document. I looked at it, and then stared at him. I did not say anything. My eyes were drilling into his forehead. He kept his eyes averted. After a while, he asked again, meekly, Are you ready to sign? I made no move and spoke no word. I just glared at him. I wanted him to be absolutely clear that I was not ready to sign, very unhappy to be there, and doing something against my will. At no point did he ask me, Have you read the document and do you understand what you are about to sign? He just kept his head down and eyes averted. I continued sitting in silence, glaring balefully at him. When they were not baleful, my eyes were daggers. I think we sat there like that, for 20 minutes, with me not uttering a word. The Commissioner of Oaths squirmed in his seat. But he did not rush me, and did not say anything except his hopeful question, now asked twice, Are you ready to sign? I answered with a deafening silence. And not a single movement.

Finally, after I felt that a sufficiently unmistakable amount of time had passed — and I think it was about 20 minutes — of silence, I heaved an internal sigh of the greatest regret, and moved to take up the pen on the table to sign the document in front of me.

I was startled by the swiftness of the Commissioner of Oaths’ next movements. He whipped out a blotter and blotted my freshly inked signature. Then he swiftly produced a self-inking Commissioner of Oaths stamp, stamped the document in the right place, dashed off his signature, blotted that in turn, gathered up the documents and practically fled from the room!

He did not say a word to me. He vanished like the Disney cartoon Road-Runner, almost leaving a trail of smoke.

The deed having been executed as the ISD wanted me to, I could now go. I was there at Phoenix Park for nine hours in all.

I went back to my office, where Tan Kheng Sun, Wong Souk Yee’s husband, and Jocelyn Lee, Patrick Seong’s wife, and a third person I was not so familiar with, were waiting for me. Their spouses had been re-arrested with the release of the Statement. Patrick Seong, counsel for some of the ex-detainees, had been arrested at the same time.

I told them what had happened at the ISD HQ at Phoenix Park, and how I was forced to sign, against my will, the SD. Jocelyn was mightily upset that I had done so. She berated me and said that I had betrayed her husband Patrick Seong by my action, which she called cowardly. I understood why she was so upset and did not want to argue with her. Although I may have said to her, Jocelyn, Patrick is inside now. He will sign an SD as well, it’s just a matter of negotiating what he will be willing to say. No, he won’t! she said in anger and tears.

The next day a plethora of SDs were published in The Straits Times. All those of us non-signatories of the Statement who were called back to the ISD HQ at Phoenix Park had SDs saying one thing or another which the ISD hoped would contradict the Statement. There was my forced SD which I signed at Phoenix Park. But lo and behold, directly next to my SD was an SD signed by Tan Kheng Sun and Jocelyn Lee, a statement reporting the points I had told them both, which clearly revealed that my hand was forced when I signed my SD. It served to completely nullify and void my SD. I was shocked, as I had not known anything about it, and Kheng Sun and Jocelyn had not told me of their intention or action at all. But I was not displeased. The wonder of it, thinking about it now, was that The Straits Times had the courage to actually publish Kheng Sun’s and Jocelyn’s SD that day, right beside and contradicting mine.

On 6 May 1988, 18 days after the release of the Statement by the ex-detainees of Operation Spectrum, Francis Seow, former Solicitor-General of Singapore, former President of the Law Society of Singapore, and counsel for Teo Soh Lung and Patrick Seong who had been re-arrested and arrested respectively on 19 April, was himself arrested under the ISA when he went to see his clients at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. That same day E Mason (Hank) Hendrickson, First Secretary of the US Embassy in Singapore, was expelled from Singapore, for apparently interfering in Singapore’s political affairs by having discussions with Francis Seow.

And two days later, on 8 May 1988 it was my turn to be re-arrested. This notwithstanding my having signed the SD they forced me to sign.

Why? Like my first arrest, I could say, absurd as it may sound — I don’t know why. Since the Marxist conspiracy was a fiction created by the ISD, and I was no conspirator and had no intention of ever bringing down the government through illegal or unlawful means, why was I selected to teach Singaporeans an object lesson about politics in Singapore as the Cold War was coming to an end in history? Why was Operation Spectrum executed at all?

This second time round, I was detained for another 10 months. I was released just before Chinese New Year, in February 1989. In all, between 1987 and 1989, I had spent 13 months in detention under the ISA.

A Grave Injustice

Tang Fong Har was practising as a lawyer in Singapore from 1981 to 1987. She was arrested in June 1987 and was one of the signatories of the joint statement by political detainees refuting the government’s allegations of a conspiracy and speaking up against their ill treatment during the 1987 detentions. Fong Har, who was abroad when the signatories were re-arrested, lives in Hong Kong.

Singapore was a