Singapore Democrats

Even if, as LKY recently affirmed, such detentions had been well-meant, this would not absolve government from blame, should it be subsequently proven they were totally un-needed, or such long detentions was un-needed, and detainees were treated "cruelly" beyond what was needed for effective interrogation, etc.

For, especially where so much unquestionable power was being enforced, those exerting it had the greater moral burden of ensuring not only that detention, and the length of it, was really justified, but also effective supervision of fair treatment of detainees.

And even should the ISA is written, as I suspect it is, in such wise as to render the challenges of a Fernandez legally futile, it would remain an important moral issue ignoring of which would send the message that the "justice and equality" we mouth in our Pledge had been only for mouthing.

To LKY and his PAP, JUSTICE is only within their own context and understanding. We need independent courts that is not taking orders from the government. Micheal should file the case at ICJ and UN Human Rights to put pressure on the PAP government.

How are we to read government's reported response, that it was Malaysia that detained him, and for purported communist-linked activities (seemingly to be uncommittal as to whether he had been innocent after all, just in case those lately declassified documents really proved he was innocent}?

Is it meant to say that Singapore had nothing to do with it, though it was Malaysia that authorised it? And, as Temasek Review points out, after the break with Malaysia, Singapore continued to detain him for the majority of the years of incarceration.

Seems, therefore, an attempt not to face the music, implying there is in truth music to face, like Pilate's washing his hands even as he ordered Jesus to be crucified.

There are two major and pertinent points that have to be made in the matter, not only Michael Fernandez, but a whole slew of other ex-detainees as well:

1. the blanket charge of being a ‘communist’ or a 'Marxist' levelled against Mr Fernandez and others by Lee Kuan Yew’s government; and,

2. who – Malaysia or Singapore – in Michael Fernandez' case had jurisdiction in his detention.

I will take each of the above points in turn.

It should be increasingly known to Singaporeans by now that it is none other than Lee Kuan Yew who is the progenitor of the extremist political ideology of fascism in this country; after entrenching himself firmly in power, he proceeded to infect swathes of the Singapore population with the toxicity of that ideology. Singaporeans in his party as well as those in the upper echelons of the administrative services are selected on that basis alone. (The ruling party defines that basis as one criterion for political talent as well as talent befitting of top civil service positions.)

As someone who espouses the furthest right political ideology, it is not unexpected that a fascist (or fascists) would feel antagonized by any ideological expression arising from the various bands on the left of the political spectrum in exactly the same way that those who lean left politically feel antagonized by political conservatism and worse, fascism. (Lee Kuan Yew’s predecessor and fellow fascist, Adolf Hitler felt EXACTLY and SIMILARLY antagonized by the left or left leaning politicians, sending many of them to their deaths in Nazi Germany’s notorious concentration camps.)

The question to ask then is: Does feeling antagonized by a vastly different political ideology constitute a threat to internal security?

Not only that, it would seem that the many Singaporeans including Mr Fernandez who had been detained under the ISA were not communists (or authoritarian socialists) in the least but were more likely DEMOCRATIC socialists.

It should also be known, at least to me, that Lee Kuan Yew, despite having spent more than half a century in politics, is completely unknowledgeable on the tools of his own career in politics. That ignorance – or is it really the distortion resulting from the mischief that I suspect was involved? – is why many Singaporeans are unable to distinguish between authoritarian socialism, complete with authoritarianism and leanings towards centrally planned economies, and democratic socialism that does not reject democracy nor capitalism, even if they tend to lean towards curbing capitalism’s excesses. Even Chiam See Tong made these gaffes in two recent seperate comments he made on democratic socialism which I will not elaborate on at this point.

But I also believe that there is foul play involved in this and many other charges made of individuals espousing communism. In Singapore’s political mythology, communism is equated to violence, and very mischievously, I might add.

It is precisely why, in the MHA’s letter to its propoganda tool, ST, the MHA's Yap Neng Jye writes, “…[Michael Fernandez] is doing a grave injustice to the many innocent lives, including that of workers and their families, which were destroyed or painfully disrupted by CPM violence and CUF civil strife over several decades in Singapore and Malaysia.”

This is the vile manner in which the ruling party has always made use of the administrative services to make the charge of violence, and a threat to internal security, stick.

But did Mr Fernandez himself advocate violence as a means to his political ends? If he didn’t, which ‘innocent lives’ has he done a direct and grave injustice to in his own political activities?

(cont...)

(…cont)

I now move on to the question of jurisdiction. (Please note that I do not have all the facts at my disposal, especially on the specificities, but hope to point others in a direction that I feel is worthy of further investigation.)

It is undeniably true that Singapore was a state in Malaysia in 1964. But merely washing the PAP government’s hands of all responsibility in this matter by dismissing Mr Fernandez’ allegations about his torture as a responsibility of the Malaysian government is further proof to me of the mischief that the PAP government frequently gets up to. Here, they are exploiting once again the low levels of political literacy in the Singapore population to further their self serving goals.

Malaysia in 1964, just as it is now, is a federal system. Importantly, in any federal system, there is a division of powers between the federal government, in this case the government in Kuala Lumpur, and the state governments who rule their individual states – only – from the various state capitals; the federal government has jurisdiction over some areas of administration while the state governments have in others. (Though irrelevant here, municipal governments have yet other powers that are assigned to them distinct from either the federal government's or the state's one.) All of these would be clearly stipulated in the Malaysian Constitution and/or other historical or court documents. Even in those areas where there is joint jurisdiction by both levels of government, their seperate powers are always very clearly defined and enunciated.

Typically in a federal state, the federal government has complete jurisdiction over defence, foreign policy, and finance along with other less well known areas such as postal services.

Just as typically, at least as far as federal states set up by the former British colonial governments goes, the federal government legislates the criminal code, but it is the state governments, specifically the home affairs ministries of the component states, that are responsible for the administration of that code. This includes in the first instance IDENTIFYING an individual as having committed a transgression of the law. (This is also where I concede that further investigation into the precise roles of the two governments has to be made.)

Thus who was really responsible for Mr Fernandez’ detention and torture: the state government of Singapore or the federal government of Malaysia?