TJS: "The ISA has been used on political opponents and those who on the other political side of the law. So the history is such that it has been used for political purposes….."At this point, TT cut in and interrupted TJS in mid-sentence. The moderator did not stop TT from speaking.
TT: "I think this is, to be fair, when one says it is used against political opponents, I think this is a VERY serious charge. You must be able to back it up!"At this point, the moderator interrupted TJS and eventually got TJS to agree to move on.
TJS: “Well, the people who have been detained had opposed the Government. That’s what I am saying. Had they been pro Government ….. "
I hear that some people who saw the exchange are saying that it was “unpresidential” for TJS to have “lost his cool” at TT’s interjectory remarks.
But other people are also asking: was it dignified for TT to have suddenly cut in while TJS was speaking?
I am intrigued by the spontaneity by which TT reacted when TJS said: “the history is such that it has been used for political purposes...”. TT’s sudden interjection sounded like a buzzer, warning TJS that he was crossing an imaginary OB marker.
The specific issue under discussion was the detention under the ISA in 1987 of 22 alleged Marxist conspirators. If the ISA was indeed abused to detain without trial one innocent person for even one day to serve political purposes, it should be enough to arouse our strident indignation at the injustice done.
These 22, one of whom was detained for 3 years, have consistently protested their innocence, asserting that their incarceration had been politically motivated. In fact, the public space is replete with books and articles written by many ISA detainees from different times, including several of the 22, giving evidence of their innocence and the political motivations behind their detentions. (See for example, “Time to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and abolish the ISA” an article written by Teo Soh Lung who was detained for 2.5 years under the ISA, posted on the internet on 19 August 2011.)
In 1991, our former Attorney-General Mr Walter Woon said in an interview to the Straits Times: “As far as I am concerned, the government’s case is still not proven. I would not say those fellows were Red, not from the stuff they presented…I think a lot of people have this scepticism.” In 2001, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam told the Straits Times: “Although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the system.”
See: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/operation-spectrum-was-political-rape
Recently, Mr Goh Chok Tong revealed in the book “Men in White: The Untold Stories of the PAP” (SPH 2009) that former National Development Minister S Dhanabalan left the Cabinet in 1992 because he was not comfortable with the way the 22 had been dealt with in 1987. “At that time, given the information, he was not fully comfortable with the action we took…he felt uncomfortable and thought there could be more of such episodes in the future…he’d better leave the Cabinet. I respected him for his view,” Mr Goh said.
So I think it is fair to say, that the way the ISA has been used, is controversial.
When TT interrupted TJS in mid-sentence, warning TJS that “when one says it is used against political opponents, I think this is a very serious charge. You must be able to back it up", TT might as well be asserting that the ISA was at all times correctly applied and never ever political motivated. TT’s interjection could also be interpreted as implying that the 22 are lying about their innocence; or even as questioning TJS’s credibility.
TJS responded to TT’s interjection with courage and boldness. Out of respect for any innocent who had suffered years of indefinite detention under ISA, this was not the time for TJS to show meekness, submission nor, least of all, deference to TT’s status as having been a former Cabinet Minister. I would have been absolutely ashamed of TJS if he has responded to TT in any other way, than how he actually did.
At the end of the day, what is most disappointing to me as a voter, on seeing TT sudden interruption, is that TT appeared as if he was protectively defending the controversial actions of the then Cabinet. The last thing I want from my Elected President, is for him to take on the role as Defender of the decisions of the Government of the day. Much heat (though not enough light) has been generated from the on-going public debates about what the Elected President can (or cannot) do or say. But it is clear that the Elected President has to be Defender, Protector, Advocate and Guardian of the people’s interests. Otherwise, it is a pointless exercise to be directly elected by the people.
When TJS threw his hat in the ring to run for the office Elected President, it was a game-changer. Up till then, we had three credible and worthy candidates, but they were all former members of the ruling party for decades. Now, for the first time in Singapore’s history, we have as a presidential candidate, a man with no affiliation with the ruling party. Among the four, TJS gives me the fullest assurance of independence and offers the best hope of being a people’s President. In him we shall have a truly independent, completely non-partisan people’s President.
All four presidential candidates are undoubtedly sincere in their desire to serve Singaporeans. But seeing the robust, courageous and convicted way in which TJS responded to TT’s remarks, TJS has proved to me that he also has the PASSION to serve Singaporeans.
Independence, moral courage and passion. I have no doubt that if elected as the President, TJS will serve the people well. My vote is for TJS.
By: Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
No comments:
Post a Comment