Part 21: A first-hand account of life in detention in Singapore’s draconian ISA

A narrative about injustice: First meeting with the Advisory Board. The supposed legal process.

A continuation of Zulfikar’s account of life under Singapore’s ISA

From the time I was given the AB notice, Tim told me to write what I would say at the meeting. I was given one piece of paper, not the reams and reams he promised during interrogation. (Read here) After writing, I was told to insert the paper in an envelope and hand it to him.

“You can have it when we meet again.” I was given the paper to look at and work on during the twice weekly meetings.

I was told to write everything that I planned to bring up with the AB.

I checked his intentions: “You just want to know what I will say at the AB.”

“It’s normal. Even in criminal trials, prosecutors and defence will share information and documents” he claimed.

“Then can I see what you say about me to the AB?”

“No you can’t” he retorted.

It did not matter that they would read what I planned to say. All of it would be what they told me to do anyway. What other options were there?

I kept asking to meet with a lawyer even though Gilbert told me that I could not arrange for one after not including it on the notification form. Chang and Tim discouraged me from trying to get legal representation.

“You are articulate” said Tim. “You don’t need a lawyer.”

“Only people who cannot speak get a lawyer. This is not like normal trials. There are no witnesses to examine. You won’t call any witnesses” Chang rejoined.

“I don’t know what to say and don’t know the procedures” I explained.

“You know, I’ve seen one detainee, he brought his paper then he crumpled it up and throw it away. He spoke from the heart.”

I asked for a lawyer repeatedly and kept getting rejected.

Tim assured me that Singapore’s judiciary was not the same as it used to be. “There are even cases where the judge ruled against the prosecution” he assured me.

Each of them told me what I should say at the AB. Roslan told me to say that I was looking forward to the rehabilitation. When I heard his advice, I thought it sounded crazy. I wanted the AB to release me, not to be detained. Why would I look forward to the rehabilitation?

Tim repeatedly told me to make sure I plead guilty. He argued that by pleading guilty, the AB would look at me more kindly

“Like if I get a parking fine and I write to the authorities. I will say it was my mistake first then I explain I had stomachache.”

Tim’s reasoning for my detention changed repeatedly. “This is not a punishment. This is rehabilitation. ISA is not punitive” he would claim.

At other times: “even though you don’t do anything wrong, because you speak in public you still need to be punished. Like if someone say ‘stab, stab’ even if he don’t stab anyone, if other people follow him, he must be punished.”

After I met with the AB, Tim tried to counter a claim some of the other officers had made about my detention. Roslan especially, liked to say that my detention was God’s will. I understood Roslan’s position: he wanted to absolve himself from his actions. If it was God’s will, then he and the ISD were not at fault.

Tim however, said “I don’t agree this is God’s will. You are here because of what you wrote.”

“I agree that we should not blame God for my detention” I countered. “It is ISD that detained me.”

“Well, when we write our reports, God nudge us on what to write.”

I thought it was interesting that he claimed to be doing God’s work.

A few days before the AB, Tim told me to be careful with what I say at the meeting.

“We will know everything you say” he warned. “After they speak with you, they will ask us.”

Ong told me to “make sure you say exactly everything you signed.”

I requested to see the statements I signed. It was rejected off hand.

On the day of the AB meeting, I was brought to meet with Ong. I had written what I planned to say at the meeting. It would be what Chang, Tim and Ong had demanded I say: I would plead guilty. Tim had repeatedly assured me that if I did, the AB would find that I am not a threat to Singapore’s security. He insisted that he did not think I was a threat.

During the meeting with Ong, I asked him for the paper that I had written. “Will I get the paper at the court or bring it with me?”

“You are not allowed. The prison side said you cannot bring any paper.”

I did not expect that. They had assured me that I would be able to bring my note.

I was taken to court the same way as previously, in a purple jumpsuit, hand and ankle cuffed, chained, blindfolded, GPS tracker and in a blackened out truck. I was led along a series of corridors and several elevators. I was finally brought to a holding room, surrounded by 4 Gurkha officers with bullet proof vests. A few minutes before the meeting, I was taken to meet Tim and Ong.

They reminded me what to say to the AB.

I was then blindfolded again and taken to a conference room. My hood was removed outside the room. I walked in, accompanied by two Gurkha officers. It was never easy walking with ankle cuffs. I had to take penguin steps.

There were five people in the room sitting at one side of a long conference table. Advisory Boards were made up of a Supreme Court judge who acted as the Chairman and two laypersons appointed by the President. The judge sat in the middle. On his right was a Chinese man in his 50s with a perpetual disgusted scowl. Beside him was a younger man who looked like a lawyer and took notes of the proceedings.

On the judge’s left was another man who looked Malay. Beside him was a lady (who also looked like a lawyer) probably in her mid to late twenties who spent the time taking notes.

The Gurkha officers stood beside me. To be held in handcuffs behind your back for hours was terribly uncomfortable. When they uncuffed my hands, I had to take some time to massage my arms and get my circulation going again. The Gurkha officers kept their hands behind me or on my shoulder.

During the AB meeting, I tried to remember what I had written. I followed the ISD’s demands. I admitted that I was wrong. I repeated what Tim said that I had to be punished for my online discussions. Throughout the meeting, the warnings that ISD officers would find out what I said and the knowledge that they could target my family and punish me further were forefront in my mind.

When the judge said that my detention was not punitive but rehabilitative, I thought “only because you do not know what happens during the interrogation and detention.”

The judge asked me if I felt betrayed by ISIS given their violence. That question threw me off. Why would I feel betrayed by a group that I did not care for? The Malay looking AB member asked if I would condemn ISIS if I was released. I told him I just want to go back to my normal life.

I was asked how religious I was. I replied that I did not know how to answer that question. I go to the mosque weekly, perform the obligatory practices and believe in Islam. But I could not quantify my belief or practices.

The judge asked if I advocated for Muslims to migrate to the caliphate. I wondered about that theoretical question. There was no caliphate, but I said, if someone wants to migrate anywhere, it was up to them. Just like how I migrated to Australia. It was only 3 years later that I found out that when they referred to “caliphate”, they meant ISIS.

I was shocked when Iqbal confirmed that was what they meant. I did not use the term “Islamic State” or “Caliphate” for them. I referred to that group as ISIS. To refer to them as Caliphate would have been an abuse of the term and given them undue credit. ISIS was a name not a designation or title.

I told the AB that I had always loved Singapore. During the meeting, we touched on the death penalty. I told them I was against it. “If you are against the death penalty, then why did you support ISIS?”

I did not.

But it did not matter what I said.

The AB members had been given the ISD’s report and that provided the basis of their assessments. Everything I said was judged against what the ISD claimed. If I disputed what the ISD said, I would be accused of lying. The questions they asked showed they had already formed their opinions.

But I still hoped. I held to Tim and Ong’s assurances that they wanted me to be released. Because the ISA was not supposed to be punitive, then pleading guilty would mean I could be released.

After about 30 minutes, I was recuffed and taken out of the conference room. Tim, ISD prison officers, Gurkha officers and court staffs were standing outside the door. I was blindfolded again and driven back to the detention centre. Tim told me that after my meeting, he was called in to confirm whatever I said.

I waited for the outcome. I had hoped that would be the only time I met with the AB. I had hoped to be released soon.

I asked Tim and Chang how long it would take for the AB to decide on my detention. I was told it was around three weeks. I waited.

I was never told of the decision. I should have understood what Tim told me at the court after I met with the AB.

As I was brought out of the conference room, I mentioned that I forgot to say somethings that I had planned.

Tim told me not to worry about it.

“You will meet them a lot of times” he laughed.

Subscribe below: