人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋

(中英文对照)Universal Periodic Review 2016 for Singapore 2016年新加坡人权普遍定期审查报告

留下评论

编者按:这份报告书由人权组织FUNCTION 8 递交给了日内瓦国际组织有关新加坡的人权状况的。报告以英文书写。

新加坡人权纪录将于2016年1月27联合国进行审核。这是第二次审核新加坡的人权纪录。第一次是在2011年。

本网站将此翻译成中文,让受华文教育读者阅读。如中英文版本之间的文字或字句有不同之,均以引文版本作为最终解释权。特此说明。全文如下:

2016年新加坡普遍定期审查报告

function 8

任意监禁,对于诸如国际特赦组织(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/)和国际法律委员会(http://www.icj.org/)即将召开的UPR对话会来说,它是一种过时的形式了。它似乎受到新加坡的繁荣和秩序的影响,不再关注在新加坡实施不经审讯的无辜与任意拘留的行为。今天的刑事犯罪法律(CLTPA Criminal Law (Temporaries Provisions) 和滥用毒品法令( Misuse of Drugs Act)在过去数以百计的犯人在内部安全法令下被监禁。

国际特赦与律师组织

有关新加坡的国家报告在任意监禁叙述的很少,甚至它根本就没有提到有非政府组织在监督人权遭受侵害的存在。幸运的是,新加坡自己的非政府组织定期的递交了有关的报告。

FUNCTION 8递交的报告可以在如下网址浏览。
http://www.upr-info.org/…/se…/function8_upr24_sgp_e_main.pdf

新加坡普遍定期报告(第二周期)
24次对话会,2016年正月——二月份
新加坡FUNCTION 8
2015年6月15日。

Function 8递交有关“预防性监禁”,或者更加准确的释义是“不经审讯的无辜犯人”。这是以下三种形式下在新加坡实施:
a. 内部安全法令;
b. 刑事犯罪临时法令;
c. 滥用毒品法律;

上述法律与法令授权(政府)允许不经审讯就武断的逮捕和监禁人民。这是否定了国际人权宣言第9和10条款的约定。人民行动党政府从1959年开始就毫无约束的引用这种任意逮捕的权力名,在不经审讯的情况下以监禁对付新加坡人。这种情况已经被世界其他国家在不知情的情况下企图模仿新加坡的做法。

2. 内部安全法令

2.1 今天在监牢里的穆斯林教徒的情况

2.1
在2011年7月11日,新加坡政府在交换式的对话会上就有关预防性监禁问题的回应。

2.1.1
是不是“它(预防性逮捕)是在别无选择的情况下和适当的程序下唯一最后可以使用的资源”(见WGUPR 81)”。斯诺维尼亚和加拿大提出的建议是,新加坡检查预防性拘留为了不违反公平审判的权利和法律顾问的权利没有得到新加坡的支持。(见WGUPR97.10和97.11)

2.1.2
新加坡的国家报告书说:“从2001年开始,超过50人在预防性法律下被监禁。他们是涉及与恐怖主义活动有关的。”

在上述国家报告出台后,我们的资料文件显示,从2001年8月起有81名穆斯林教徒(包括3名重新被捕)被逮捕。与其在口头上说“超过50人”,政府应该说68人,或者接近70名被监禁在牢里。新加坡政府不把确实被捕监禁的人数提交给联合国的态度说明了,他们是采取了不愿意坦诚提供完整报告的态度。

2.1.3
政府并没有提供确凿的证据有关监禁81名被捕者;同时,他们当中没有一个人被控上法院。在这些人当中的3个人仍然在监禁中。他们每一个已经在牢里不经审讯被监禁超13年。这比起被美国政府在关塔纳摩监狱的犯人时间还要长。

2.1.4
在2015年4月和5月份,两名年纪17岁和19岁的穆斯林青年被逮捕并在内部安全法令下不经审讯情况下被监禁。政府指控这两名未透露姓名的年轻人是自我激进化和具有企图进行暴力袭击行为。同样的,这些指控并没有提出任何有力的证据。他们并没有透露任何武器或者文件的证据,以显示这两名青年要进行暴力袭击。新加坡是一个没有发生任何意外事件的国家。这个案件明显说明了政府是在引用内部安全法令时并不是采纳了“它(预防性逮捕)是在别无选择的情况下和适当的程序下唯一最后可以使用的资源”(见WGUPR 81)。”他们仅仅就是基于政治性质的原因。诸如叙利亚和世界其他国家而言,那些年轻人的行为可能是受到当地的冲突的影响,引用内部安全法令来制止这样性质的冲突的发展那是需要的。
(相关链接网址:
http://www.mha.gov.sg/Newsroom/press-releases/Pages/Arrest%20and%20Detention%20of%20Self-Radicalised%20Singaporeans%20under%20the%20Internal%20Security%20Act.aspx

2.1.5
至今还有11名穆斯林教徒在内部安全法令下继续被监禁。他们名字如下:
1. Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin (被捕时间:2001年12月);
2. Alahuddeen bin Abdullah (被捕时间:2001年10月);
3. Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan (被捕时间:2002年12月);
4. Mas Selamat bin Kastari (被捕时间:2010年9月);
5. Abdul Rahimbin Abdul Rahman (被捕时间;2012年2月);
6. Husaini bin Ismail (被捕时间:2012年5月);
7. Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader (被捕时间:2012年9月);
8. Asyrani bin Hussaini (被捕时间:2013年3月);
9. Masyhadi bin Mas Selamat (被捕时间:2013年10月);
10. M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’i (被捕时间:2015年4月);
11. 17岁青年(姓名未祥) (被捕时间:2015年5月)。

2.2. 使用不正当的“预防性监禁”

2.2.1
“预防性监禁”的是被人为的错误引用了。它的初衷目的是针对个别人士的行为而制定的。目的是防止某些危险行为可能危害及国家的安全而必须采取监禁的措施。但是,实际情况是,在1959年行动党取得政权后,使用了这部法令在不经审讯的情况下对付数以百计的人。这绝对不是巧合。因为这些被捕者都是行动党主要的政治对手。这种广泛使用这种在没有确定罪名下不经审讯滥用权力逮捕行为是在于延续行动党的统治。这样的监禁行为应该称为:“不经审讯的执行监禁”。因为这种行为是在被命令下或者未经审讯的监禁。严酷刑法掌握在行动党手中的情况下,执政的行动党可以随意压制任何起来的反抗组织和维持着几乎完全绝大多数的统治。

2.3 使用内部安全法律的背景及其产生的后果

2.3.1
在1960和1970年代,内部安全法令被是用来对付挑战行动党的统治权力政治对手,诸如工运者、新闻作者、专业人士、社会活跃分子和学生。在1980年代,一批专业人士和社会活动分子在内部安全法令下被监禁在监牢里。从1990年到2000年就没有人被逮捕了。从2001年到今天有81名穆斯林教徒被逮捕。

2.3.2
在内部安全法令监禁下的期限是不确定的。除了被监禁者的精神状况不适合、或者接受永远放弃政治活动、或者离开新加坡直到度过自己的峥嵘岁月的条件外,否则,没有任何政治异己分子会在内部安全法令下被释放。新加坡社会主义阵线当年的国会议员谢太宝先生在监狱里度过了32年。当年他被被捕时是20多岁,他被释放时已经50多岁。他的峥嵘岁月都在监牢度过了。他自己的政党也已经与他没有任何相关了。许多在内部安全法令下被捕的政治犯在牢里度过了10-20年之久。行动党这样做的目的就是要阻止主要的政治反对者无法进入国会。这就是为什么行动党可以从1959年继续执政至今的真正原因。

2.3.3
在1963年2月2日,行动党政府伙同当时的马来亚政府和英国殖民主义者使用防止公共安全法令1955(这是内部安全法令的前身)逮捕了超过133名反对党领袖。在同年9月举行的大选后,更加多的反对党领袖被捕。这些被捕者包括了三名获选的立法议会议员。有两名立法议会议员,陈新荣和黄信芳成功逃脱了被捕,而自我流放到国外。他们目前还过着流亡政治生涯。

相关链接视频网址:李思东、S.T.巴尼和卢妙萍
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UR_xHJ9Ac

2.3.4 附录:
1. 这份名单所提供是包括了在内部安全法令下被捕的前政治犯。您可以从这份名单里查阅从1963到1988年期间被捕日期,几乎每一年都进行逮捕行动。在1987和1989 年期间,24位专业人士、教会工作者、社会活跃分子和学生被捕。这些频繁被捕者和被监禁者当中的一些人可能会成为社会活动的领袖或者在国会里的反对党成员。恐惧的心理仍然在一般的民众心中。这种恐惧的心态是自1959年行动党执政以来就一直存在。在这长达56年的日子,其中的15年(从1966年到1980年)期间,在新加坡的国会里没有一名反对党的成员。在这些年代期间,几乎或者接近几乎让行动党在完全没有辩论的情况下,可以制定任何的法律法令。这个基础是确保了行动党可以剥夺了宪法赋予的程序。死刑法律和体罚被用来引用在刑事犯罪。这些法令法律在过去是未曾有过的。国会甚至扩大到修改废除上诉到枢密院和司法复核有关内部法令案件的溯及力的影响。仓促的国会干预妨碍了犯人尝试把自己案件上诉到枢密院。

2. 张素兰:《在蓝色栅门的后面——一个政治犯的回忆纪实》(Beyond the Blue Gate Recollections of a Political Prisoner)。第8B和第8C:1989年正月30日内部安全法令。出版社:Function 8 Limited。2011年修订本。

3. 《我的经历—边缘人的回忆录》( a memoir from the margins)作者:康斯坦斯.辛甘(Constance Singam)。2013年精选本。

4. 《情系五一三 1950年代新加坡华文中学学生运动与政治变革》(The May 13 Generation, The Chinese Middle Schools Student Movement and Singapore Politics in the 1950s) 作者:陈仁贵(Tan Jing Quee),陈国相(Tan Kok Chiang)、孔丽莎(Hong Lysa)。出版社:策略资讯研究中心( Strategic Information and Research Development Centre) 2011年

5. 《逃出狮爪——新加坡政治流亡者的回想》(Escape from the Lion’s Paw, Reflections of Singapore’s Political Exiles)作者:张素兰( Teo Soh Lung)、刘玉玲(Low Yit Leng)出版社: Function 8 Limited 2012年

6. 《烟幕与镜子 马克思主义阴谋的追溯》(Smokescreens & Mirrors, Tracing the ‘Marxist Conspiracy’)作者:陈华彪。出版社: Function 8 Limited, 2012年

7. 《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动50周年纪念》(The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years), 编辑:傅树介(Poh Soo Kai)、陈国防(Tan Kok Fang)和孔丽莎(Hong Lysa)。出版社:策略资讯研究中心(Strategic Information and Research Development Centre)。2013年;

8. 《年轻人在审讯中》(Youth on Trial),编辑:陈慧娴(Chan Wai Han)。出版社: Function 8 Ltd, 2014年;

9. 《传教士在牙笼 牙笼天主教中心鲜为人知的故事》(Priest in Geylang, The Untold Story of the Geylang Catholic Centre)作者:Fr Guillaume Arotcarena。出版社:Ethos Books。 2015年.

政治犯历史书籍

相关链接网址:http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00076651-WA&currentPubID=00076180-WA&topicKey=00076180-WA.00076651-WA_7%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B

2.3.5
生活在恐惧中已经深根地固的埋在新加坡人的心灵上了。恐惧的心理已经把新加坡人变得沉默与驯服了。在过去数十年,新加坡人恐惧参加反对党的活动,或者就是参与非行动党支持的非政府组织的活动。他们在反对行动党的政策时只敢低声细语的谈论着。

2.3.6
直到6年前,前政治犯大部分仍然还是采取沉默的态度。在最近才有一本由前政治犯撰写的文章出现在新加坡。那些历史学家在检视了历史档案资料后,开始对有关的历史事件真相进行与(新加坡政府)官方不同阐述后,恐惧心理稍微减少。当时,恐惧的心理还是深藏在一部分新加坡人的心灵上。新加坡人在主观上已经被恐惧心理笼罩了超过56年了。他们经过一个相当长的时间去治疗这样的创伤。

2.3.7
对于未被定罪不经审讯的犯人另一个严峻致命性的冲击,就是其家属为此付出极其高昂代价的影响。这些被捕者是家里的经济主要支柱。在他们被捕后,他们的家属只能依靠自力更生。由此产生的结果是,他们的孩子的教育必然受到牵连。这些被捕者的家属在经济上和情绪上面对极大的打击时,政府完全没有负责任的采取协助这些被捕者家属面对的高昂的经济负担。

2.3.8
政府现在和历史上使用内部安全法令是逾越了公共安全的利益的。因为缺乏自由的合法资讯和法院对任何有关政府基于国家安全作为背景的投诉采取了勉强的立场。新加坡内政部长在2011年11月21日回答非选区国会议员詹时中夫人(Mrs Lina Chiam)在国会询问,提出有关从1959年到1990年之间在内部安全法令下被捕的犯人人数时揭露说是2460人。我们不知道这个数据是否准确。诸如我们在上述所看到的情况,政府是可以轻而易举的粉饰这些数据的。在我们的附录:(1)所提供的被捕者名单的数字是1315人。这是从1959年到2015年5月31日之间被捕的人数。这个1315被捕者名单里还包括了一名未具名的17岁穆斯林少年。

2.3.9
不经审讯被监禁是一个极其残酷、非人道的。使用这种行为在新加坡本身就是就被视为是一种违反人道主义的虐待和犯罪行为。因为它是一种毫无根据和实现预设好挫折政治者意愿的牺牲品。许多被关在牢里的犯人是逾越了行动党的政治需要的。这是一种虐待和破坏了国际人权宣言第9章和第10章的约定的。新加坡人民行动党的发起人和立法议会议员、已故林清祥先生是在内部安全法令下被捕的。他告诉历史学家美德妮.周小姐(Melanie Chew):

事实是,我们都是在未经审讯下长期被监禁的。我们不知道未来将会如何。就我而言,只一种虐待。通过这样的虐待,你可以长期监禁直到某些时候你愿意羞辱自己的正直为止。政治自我羞辱是一种公开的形式的。当走出监牢时,你是无法抬头与你过去的朋友见面。只有在这种情况下,他们才会释放你。这就是一种极其残酷的虐待。
这比起日本占领时期还要来得恶劣。当一把刀子架在的你的脖子上时,他们就是把你杀了,或者开一枪把你毙了。但这种羞辱的阴影却是一生伴随着你的。这是极其残酷的。
见《新加坡的领袖》第119页。作者:美德妮.周小姐(Leaders of Singapore by Melanie Chew)出版社:资源出版社 1996年。

《在蓝色栅门的后面——一个政治犯的回忆纪实》出处同上。(Beyond the Blue Gate Recollections of a Political Prisoner)作者:张素兰,出版社:Function 8 Limited,2011年。

2.3.10
不经审讯而未确定罪行的犯人可以让行动党关押那些对它们造成威胁的人。尽管这样的监禁与宪法确保人民的生存权力和个人自由产生了冲突。但是,法院却不愿意采取一种坚定的措施制止它的执行。这个可以从在1987年和1989年“光谱行动”下被捕的政治犯申请司法复核的案件清楚看到。这导致新加坡人民在宪法上获得保证的基本自由的权力遭受剥夺了!

2.4.1 缺乏监督和平衡

2.4.1
没有一个安全监督机制监管内部安全法令。咨询委员会的听证会上是在闭门的情况下进行的。高等法院的一位法官可能是其中一名咨询委员,但是他的起不了作用的。犯人在出席咨询委员会听证时是不允许看到那些指控他的证据或者盘问那些指控他的人的。听证会是秘密和在极短的几分钟时间。在1987年,内部安全局负责官员劝告政治犯说,那些向(政府)提出司法挑战的政治犯最终只能会给自己带来更加长期的监禁。这些事实例子就发生几个政治犯身上。诸如萧添寿先生。他就是在监牢会见自己的当事人被捕的。这是具有讽刺性的笑话。

2.5 新加坡的作为已经能够为世界做出的不良榜样。

2.5.1
新加坡政府在他的国家报告里自夸说,“世界各国政府越来越认识到必须采取预防权力全面制度化的法律框架内有效应对恐怖主义和各种形式的暴力极端主义。”

2.5.2
任意逮捕和在不经审讯确定罪行下的监禁,只不过是让一种不民主的政权在不受监督下继续统治这个国家。行动党政府使用内部安全法令是已经成年累月和无情与此为目的。它们并没有使用刀子或者子弹去屠杀政治异己分子。但是,使用这种方式就如已故林清祥先生所说的,

这比使用刀子和子弹还要来得残酷。行动党的目标是要以奶油似的社会,但是,他们并不要把这些政治犯从肉体消灭他们。

3.刑事法律(临时条款)—刑事犯罪临时法令与滥用毒品法律(CLPTA)

3.1
这部法律授权政府可以不经审讯未确定罪行下监禁犯人。这部法律是在1955年制定的。当时制定这部法律的目的是要用来对付私会党临时和特别法令。现在这部法律却用对付那些贩卖毒品、非法放借高利贷者和国际足球比赛的仆基。通过使用这部法律的权力,不经审讯的监禁那些与各种刑事罪行。政府已经暗地里破坏法律的基本宗旨——每一个人首先是在无辜的,直到获得证据证明他有罪。这个法令宗旨在民主社会里永远是至高无上的。政府并在其报告里透露在这部法令下有多少人不监禁在监牢里。
Tan Seet Eng与总检察署(Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 18).

4. 滥用毒品法令

4.1
在这不法令的第四部分约定,任何一个人被涉嫌是瘾君子是可以被监禁在拘留所三年。这部法律并没有一个安全监督系统确保假设这个瘾君子需要在拘留所里进行改造和或者在拘留所进行改造是一个最好途径。这并不是解决普遍滥用毒品的途径。同样的情况, 政府并没有在它的报告里透露在这部法令下有多少被监禁。

5. 结论与建议

5.1
自由是人类与生俱来的权利。那些被怀疑触犯法律(在法律已经被确定触犯法律)的人是有权力获得公平和公开的审讯的。内部安全法令、刑事法律(临时条款)—刑事犯罪临时法令与滥用毒品法律(CLPTA)在民主的社会制度里是不允许存在的。新加坡有广泛资源训练自己的警察队伍,进行侦查和搜集证据的技术以应对刑事和恐怖主义的活动。所以的犯罪者可以被戴上法院进行审讯,并给予他们公平的审讯。假设案件需要在秘密情况下保护证人,这样审讯可以使用视频进行审讯。这些法律滋生自满情绪,破坏了警方的功效。政府必须尊重新加坡宪法赋予的确保全体公民拥有基本的自由的至高无上准则。没有人可以在执行过程中超越这个至高无上的准则。

5.2
为此,我们呼吁新加坡政府

5.2.1
废除内部安全法令和临时扣留条款和滥用毒品法令

5.2.2
废除滥用毒品法律第4部分

5.2.3
释放全部在内部安全法令和临时扣留条款和滥用毒品法令下犯人或者都他们进行公开审讯。

5.2.4
签署与确认国际公约有关平民与政治权利条款和国际公约有关虐待和其他残酷、非人道或者有傉人格或者惩罚的条款。

function 8本报告书由Function 8 董事:

张素兰(Teo Soh Lung), 叶汉源(Yap Hon Ngian)、陈慧娴(Chan Wai Han)

附录;1315名政治犯名单:
http://www.upr-info.org/…/session_24_-_january_2016/functio…

 

Universal Periodic Review 2016 for Singapore

Noted :Singapore’s human rights record comes up for review at the UN on 27 Jan 2016. This is the second review, the first was in 2011.

function 8

Arbitrary detention is out of fashion with international organisations such as Amnesty International (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/)and the International Commission of Jurists (http://www.icj.org/)in the upcoming UPR session. It is likely that they are influenced by the prosperity and orderliness of Singapore and are not aware that indefinite and arbitrary detention without trial is still being practised in Singapore and that there are hundreds of prisoners imprisoned under the ISA, the CLTPA and the MDA today.

国际特赦与律师组织

Singapore’s National Report speaks little about arbitrary detention. Indeed, it does not even mention the existence of NGOs which check on human rights abuses. Fortunately, on their own, these NGOs submitted timely reports.

Function 8 too submitted its report and it can be read here:
SINGAPORE
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
(Second Cycle)
24th Session, January – February 2016
Submission by Function 8
15 June 2015

1. Function 8 submits on “Preventive Detention” or more accurately “indefinite imprisonment without trial” that is permitted by three Singapore statutes: the Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. This power to arbitrarily arrest and imprison people without trial negates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The People’s Action Party (PAP) government has since 1959 freely exercised this arbitrary power. Imprisonment without trial has severe and detrimental consequences for Singaporeans and the world as other countries, not knowing fully how this power is used, attempt to emulate Singapore.

2. Internal Security Act (ISA)

2.1
Position of Muslim prisoners today

2.1.1
Singapore’s response to questions on preventive detention at the interactive dialogue on 11 July

2.1.A
1 was that “it [preventive detention] was used only as a last resort in very exceptional circumstances, and with appropriate procedural safeguards.” (WGUPR 81). The recommendations by Slovenia and Canada that Singapore review preventive detention so as not to violate the right to fair trial and right to counsel did not enjoy Singapore’s support. (WGUPR 97.10 and 97.11)

2.1.2
Singapore’s National Report states: “Since December 2001, over 50 persons have been held in preventive detention for involvement in terrorism-related activities.” From our documentation,81 Muslims (including 3 who were re-arrested) have been imprisoned since August 2001, 13 of whom were arrested after the date of the National Report. Instead of using the vague phrase of “over 50 people”, the government should have stated that 68 people or nearly 70 people were imprisoned. The manner in which the number of prisoners is officially reported to an august body, the UN, shows the government’s reluctance to give full and frank disclosure.

2.3 Background on the use of the ISA and its consequences

2.1.3
No evidence has been produced against any of the 81 imprisoned and none has been charged or tried in open court. Three of these prisoners are still in prison and each of them has now spent more than 13 years in jail without trial, a record equivalent or even worse than the Guantanamo prisoners.

2.1.4
In April and May 2015, two young Muslims, aged 19 and 17, were arrested and imprisoned without trial under the ISA. The government alleged that these unarmed young people were self-radicalised and harboured the intention to carry out violent attacks. Again, these allegations were not substantiated by any evidence. No weapons or documents showing plans to carry out violent attacks were disclosed. Singapore is peaceful and incident-free. These are clear cases of the government using the ISA, not “as a last resort in very exceptional circumstances” but for political reasons. In view of the crisis in Syria and elsewhere, its intent is to show that young people may be influenced by such conflicts and the ISA is necessary to suppress such developments.

http://www.mha.gov.sg/Newsroom/press-releases/Pages/Arrest%20and%20Detention%20of%20Self-Radicalised%20Singaporeans%20under%20the%20Internal%20Security%20Act.aspx

2.1.5
Today, there are 11 people, all Muslims, being imprisoned under this law. Their names and dates of arrests are:

1. Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin (Dec 2001);
2. Alahuddeen bin Abdullah (Oct 2002);
3. Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan (Dec 2002);
4. Mas Selamat bin Kastari (Sept 2010);
5. Abdul Rahimbin Abdul Rahman (Feb 2012);
6. Husaini bin Ismail (May 2012);
7. Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader (Sept 2012);
8. Asyrani bin Hussaini (Mar 2013);
9. Masyhadi bin Mas Selamat (Oct 2013);
10. M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’i (Apr 2015);
11. a 17-year-old unnamed youth (May 2015).

2.2 “Preventive Detention” a misnomer

2.2.1
The term “preventive detention” is misleading. It presupposes that certain individuals ought to be incarcerated as a pre-emptive move to prevent the committing of offences which might endanger national security. In reality, since the PAP came into power in 1959, thousands had been imprisoned without any charge being brought against them. It was not coincidental that those individuals were key political opponents of the PAP. It is this extensive use of such arbitrary power of arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial that helped perpetuate the rule of the PAP. Such detentions should be called “Executive imprisonment without trial” since it is ordered by the executive or simply “imprisonment without trial”. With this draconian power in their hands, the ruling PAP is effective in curbing the growth of organised dissent and maintaining near-absolute majority rule.

2.3.1
In the 1960s and 70s, the ISA was used against political opponents, trade unionists, journalists, professionals, activists and students in order to prevent them from challenging the PAP’s hold on power. By the 1980s, only professionals and activists remained to be imprisoned under the ISA. From 1990 to 2000, there were no arrests. From 2001 till today, 81 Muslims were arrested.

2.3.2
The length of imprisonment under the ISA is indefinite. No opposition political leader is released unless he is mentally unfit, or agrees to eschew politics, leave Singapore or until he is past his prime and will never return to the political scene. Singapore’s political prisoner, Mr Chia Thye Poh, a Barisan Sosialis member of parliament, spent 32 years in prison. He was in his 20s when arrested. By the time he was freed, he had passed the prime of his life and his party had been made totally irrelevant. Many other ISA prisoners were made to spend 10 to 20 years in jail. The PAP thus prevented key political opponents from entering parliament. This is how the PAP retains power since 1959.

2.3.3
In February 1963, the PAP together with the government of Malaya and Britain used the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance 1955 (the forerunner of the ISA) to arrest more than 133 opposition leaders. After the general election in September that year, more opposition leaders were arrested. The arrests included three elected members of the legislative assembly. Two other elected members, Wong Soon Fong and Chan Sun Wing, escaped and went into exile. They are still in political exile today.
Lee Tee Tong, S T Bani and Loh Miaw Gong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UR_xHJ9Ac

2.3.4.Appendix

1 this is a list of ISA prisoners compiled by former ISA prisoners. As can be seen from this list, from 1963 to 1981, there were arrests every year. In 1987 and 1988, 24 professionals, church workers, activists and students were arrested. The frequent arrests and imprisonment of people who could have become community leaders and opposition members of parliament, instilled fear in the general population. It is this fear that enables the PAP to stay in power since 1959. Within these 56 years, there was a period of 15 years (from 1966 to 1980) when there was not a single opposition member in parliament. These years of absolute and near-absolute PAP rule have enabled parliament to enact laws without debate. Fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution had been curtailed. Death penalty and corporal punishment were introduced for crimes that did not carry such penalties previously. Parliament even went to the extent of amending laws to abolish appeals to the Privy Council and judicial review for ISA cases with retrospective effect. Hurried parliamentary intervention sabotaged a prisoner’s attempt to take her appeal to the Privy Council.

2. Beyond the Blue Gate Recollections of a Political Prisoner by Teo Soh Lung, Function 8 Limited, Revised Edn 2011; Sections 8B and 8C of the Internal Security Act as at 30 Jan 1989.

3.Where I was, a memoir from the margins by Constance Singam, Select Publishing, 2013.

4.The May 13 Generation, The Chinese Middle Schools Student Movement and Singapore Politics in the 1950s, Edited by Tan Jing Quee, Tan Kok Chiang and Hong Lysa, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2011;

5.Escape from the Lion’s Paw, Reflections of Singapore’s Political Exiles Edited by Teo Soh Lung and Low Yit Leng, Function 8 Limited, 2012;

6.Smokescreens & Mirrors, Tracing the ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ by Tan Wah Piow, Function 8Limited, 2012;

7.The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years, Edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang and Hong Lysa, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2013;

8.Youth on Trial, Edited by Chan Wai Han, Function 8 Ltd, 2014;

9.Priest in Geylang, The Untold Story of the Geylang Catholic Centre by Fr Guillaume Arotcarena , Ethos Books, 2015.

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00076651-WA&currentPubID=00076180-WA&topicKey=00076180-WA.00076651-WA_7%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B

政治犯历史书籍

2.3.5
Living in fear is deeplyin grained in the psyche of Singaporeans. Fear has silenced and
tamed Singaporeans. For decades, Singaporeans fear joining opposition parties, or even participating in non-PAP endorsed NGO activities, and would only speak in whispers when they oppose PAP policies.

2.3.6
Until the last six years, former ISA prisoners had largely remained silent. It is only recently, that books and articles written by former ISA prisoners have appeared in Singapore. Historians who have inspected archival documents have also begun to interpret events differently from the official narrative. But fear is still part of the Singaporean psyche. Singaporeans have internalised fear for 56 years and it will take a long time to undo this damage.

2.3.7
Another severe detrimental effect of indefinite imprisonment without trial is the exceedingly high cost to the families of those arrested. They are left to fend for themselves while the breadwinners are in prison. The education of young children is adversely affected. The families undergo tremendous financial and emotional hardship. The government has never taken responsibility for this heavy cost to families of those imprisoned.

2.3.8
The government’s current and historical use of the ISA is beyond public scrutiny because of the absence of Freedom of Information legislation and the courts’ reluctance to challenge any government’s claim based on national security grounds. In answer to a parliamentary question posed by Mrs Lina Chiam, a Non-constituency Member of Parliament on 21 November 2011, the Minister of Home Affairs revealed that 2,460 people were imprisoned under the ISA from 1959 to 1990. We do not know if this number is accurate. As can be seen from above, the government is capable of glossing over numbers. Appendix 1 is a list of 1314 names of people arrested from 1959 to 31 May 2015 under the ISA. The 1315th prisoner is an unnamed 17-year-old Muslim youth.

2.3.9
Imprisonment without trial is cruel, inhuman and the manner it is used in Singapore should per se be deemed as torture and a crime against humanity because it is unwarranted and designed to sap the political will of its victims. Many were imprisoned beyond the PAP’s political needs. It is torture and a breach of Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The late Mr Lim Chin Siong, who was a founding member of the PAP and a legislative assemblyman, was arrested and imprisoned thrice under the ISA. He said in an interview with historian Melanie Chew:

“The fact is that all of us were detained without trial, for ages. Not knowing when we would be coming out. That I would say is a torture. A torture. You are detained for years until such a time that you are willing to humiliate your own integrity. Until you are humiliated publicly. So much so, when you come out, you cannot put your head up, you cannot see your friends. Alright, then they may release you. It is a very cruel torture.

It is worse than in the Japanese time, when with a knife, they just slaughter you. One shot, you die. But this humiliation will carry on for life. It is very cruel.”

Leaders of Singapore by Melanie Chew, Resource Press Pte Ltd, 1996 p. 119.

Beyond the Blue Gate, Recollections of a Political Prisoner by Teo Soh Lung, Function 8 Limited, 2011. 10 Ibid.

2.3.10
Indefinite imprisonment without trial has enabled the PAP to imprison people who pose a challenge to them. Although such imprisonment is also contrary to constitutional guarantees of the right to life and personal liberty, the Singapore courts appear unwilling to take a robust approach to rein in the executive. This was clearly seen in the application for judicial review of several political prisoners in “Operation Spectrum” in 1987.9 It has resulted in the citizens of Singapore being deprived of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Singapore.

2.4 Lack of checks and balances

2.4.1
There are no safeguards in the ISA. The Advisory Board conducts hearings behind closed doors. A High Court judge may be a member of the Board but he is ineffective. No prisoner appearing before the Board is permitted to see the evidence against him or to question the person who made allegations against him. Hearing is private and may take just a few minutes. Prisoners in 1987 were specifically advised by their ISD handlers that launching any legal challenge against their imprisonment would result in prolonged incarceration. The fact that the lawyer for several of the prisoners, Mr Francis Seow, was himself arrested when he went to interview his clients in prison, makes a mockery of any claim of safeguards.

2.5 Singapore a bad model for the World

2.5.1
The Singapore government boasts in its National Report that “Governments around the world increasingly recognise the need for preventive powers within a comprehensive institutionalised legal framework to deal effectively with terrorism and all forms of violent extremism.”

2.5.2
Arbitrary arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial merely enable an undemocratic regime to carry on governing a country unchecked. The PAP’s use of the ISA is targeted, sophisticated and ruthless. It does not use the sword or the bullet to kill off political opponents. But its method as opined by the late Mr Lim Chin Siong,

is worse than the bullet and the sword. The PAP targets the cream of society but does not kill them physically.

3. Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLPTA)

3.1
This law also authorises indefinite imprisonment without trial. When it was enacted in 1955, it was meant to be temporary and specifically to deal with gangsterism. It now applies to cases of alleged drug trafficking, illegal moneylending and international soccer match fixing. By using the power of indefinite imprisonment without trial to deal with various crimes, the government has undermined the basic tenets of the rule of law. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This tenet should at all times be upheld in any democratic society. The government does not report on the number of people imprisoned under this law.

Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 18.

4. Misuse of Drugs Act

4.1
Any person who is suspected of being a drug addict can be detained in an institution for three years under Part IV of this law. There is no safeguard to ensure if the person needs rehabilitation in such an institution and whether institutionalising him is the best way to treat drug addiction. This is not the way to resolve a universal drug abuse problem. Again, the government does not report on the number of people detained under this law.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations:

5.1
All human beings are born free and those suspected of committing offences (as defined by the law of the land) have the right to a fair and public trial. The Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and Part IV of the Misuse of Drugs Act have no place in a democratic country. Singapore has ample resources to train its police force to improve detection and evidence gathering techniques to combat crimes and terrorism. Offenders can be brought to court and given a fair trial. If there is a need to maintain confidentiality of witnesses, the trial can be held in camera. These laws breed complacency and undermine the efficacy of the police force. The government should respect the supremacy of the Constitution of Singapore which guarantees fundamental liberties to all citizens. No one is above the law, least of all, the executive.

5.2
Therefore we urge the Singapore government to:

5.2.1
Repeal the ISA and the CLTPA

5.2.2
Repeal Part IV of the Misuse of Drugs Act

5.2.3
Release all prisoners detained under the ISA, CLTPA and Misuse of Drugs Act or charge them in open court

5.2.4
Sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Submitted by: function 8

Teo Soh Lung, Yap Hon Ngian and Chan Wai Han
Directors, Function 8

The annexure containing a list of 1315 ISA political prisoners can be found here:
http://www.upr-info.org/…/session_24_-_january_2016/functio…

Advertisements

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com 徽标

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  更改 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  更改 )

Connecting to %s

这个站点使用 Akismet 来减少垃圾评论。了解你的评论数据如何被处理