Part 25: A first-hand account of life in detention in Singapore’s draconian ISA

A narrative about injustice: “We want you to accept the Islam we approve.” ISD trying to change my Islamic beliefs.

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

I was told that the only way I would be released was if I changed.

Soon after I was given the detention order, Chang asked me “Have you heard the song ‘Another day in paradise’?”

“Yes Phil Collins” I replied.

“Yea. If you don’t change, you will be here for years and years. Your case officers will change. We will get other people. They will go to different department or retire. You will stay here. It will be just ‘Another day in Paradise’ for you.”

I have no problems with change. To reject change was to reject growth. I looked forward to it. The problem with their demand was that they wanted me to change to what they wanted me to be.

The ISD lost any chance of that happening when they abused their power and forced me to make false confessions to detain me.

How was I supposed to accept that?

Amazingly, while they were each supposed to “counsel” me on different matters, the ISD officers, psychologists and religious counsellors converged in the rejection of politics. Hafiz demanded I stop criticising the government and argued that Singaporeans did not discuss politics.

Iqbal told me that he did not care about my criticism of the PAP but said I should not criticise the government. He further argued that the government knew what they were doing. Ajitpal told me not to seek change. Both Iqbal and Ajitpal argued that democracy was not acceptable in Singapore. They claimed that my discussions of democracy was tantamount to trying to impose “Australian democracy” to Singapore. Singapore for them, was exceptional. It had its own brand of democracy.

For the RRG counsellors, politics was rejected with an Islamic or anti-Islamic justification.

The second counsellor, Ustadz Dr Feisal Hassan had two primary messages. He claimed that his PhD research was on the concept of “wasatiya”. Wasatiya had regularly been mistranslated to mean “moderation” in Islam. I told him that I reject the use of the term moderate and extreme. Even Osama ben Laden would claim to be moderate. He agreed. According to Ustadz Feisal, the term moderate did not do justice to wasatiya. He viewed wasatiya as representing the ideal point for a Muslim’s action as understood through the work of Imam Ghazali.

I enjoyed those discussions. A discussion that resonated strongly with me was the concept of mercy in Islam. We agreed that Islam is beautiful and merciful. That Allah is merciful. That Allah’s compassion envelopes his creation.

But he also made several problematic arguments. His PhD thesis was not simply about understanding wasatiyah or the ideal point of Islamic understanding and practice. After my release from detention, I read his PhD thesis. His thesis claimed that the Singapore religious leadership (MUIS and RRG) and PAP Muslim Ministers were the ideal examples of Islamic practice.

What I found most problematic with his counselling however, was his constant demand that I not get involved in other discussions. The government should be left to govern. The Islamic scholars should be left to their role. I should keep away. He used the analogy that every flower is beautiful in its own way but they were all different.

And yet, he demanded I keep away from my research area. I studied politics. And have researched quite a bit on Islam and politics. These were my areas of study. To demand I not discuss governance and politics did not make sense. 1. I believe politics is everyone’s responsibility. 2. It was my area of research.

While Ustadz Feisal’s demand for depoliticization was based on his privileging the PAP elites (and that we should leave politics and governance to them), Ustadz Mohamed’s demand was probably based on intra-religious rivalries. It led to him blaming Islam.

Ustadz Mohamed claimed that terrorism was an Islamic phenomena. It should be noted that the leaders of the RRG including the two counsellors were Sufi. Traditionally, the Sufi have been political rivals of the Salafi. With the Sufi forming the RRG and its close connection with the PAP, they get the greatest traction in the Singapore establishment.

I have no issues with someone choosing to be Sufi, Salafi or any of the other denominations. I have a problem with the RRG using state power to privilege their preference.

Ustadz Mohamed argued that terrorism was a Salafi project. For him, hatred, enmity (and violence) against non-Muslim was a Salafi creed. I disagreed. I explained that I know a lot of Salafis who lived peaceably and with affection with non-Muslims. I argued that terrorism was political violence. Some may use religion as justification but their motivations have always been politics. I accept that there were some Salafis who were inclined towards violence but that was not a condition of the belief. I reminded him that Omar Mokhtar, the Libyan freedom fighter against Italian colonisation was accused of being a terrorist and was a Sufi Sheikh.

We continuously disagreed on the source of terrorism. I relayed my definition of terrorism as “violence committed against a civilian population to cause fear for a political objective.” The four elements of violence, on civilians, fear and political objective must exist before an act can be classified as terrorism.

Ustadz Mohamed was adamant on his blame of the Salafis. It did not make sense. The FARC, LTTE, Basque separatists have all been accused of committing terrorism. Would he trace their motivations to Salafism? Various political groups have committed terrorism from France’s Robespierre to Peru’s Shining Path and they were not associated with religion.

In a side discussion, Ustadz Mohamed repeatedly asked me for advice on how to counsel Muslim youths who were becoming extreme. I am quite sure he asked me not because of whatever insight I could provide, but to assess my response. I asked him what he meant about Muslim youth extremism.

“They do not want to get involved with non-Muslims” he replied.

“You can get someone they respect to discuss with them. What are their demographics?” I queried.

“Young, university students.”

“What do they think of the government?”

“They don’t like the government” he explained.

“Then you cannot be the one to counsel them” I told him.

“Why? Why not?” he snapped.

“Because you are too close to the PAP.”

“Do they know?” he barked. “Do they know why I’m close to the PAP?”

“I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter. You won’t have credibility because you are too close to the PAP.”

The claim that religion was the cause of violence was not just Ustadz Mohamed’s argument. Ajitpal Singh kept selling that point. According to Ajitpal, Muslim rulers in India were so evil that the Hindus created a pure army (the Khalsa) that became the Sikh warriors to fight against the Muslims.

He ascribed violence to religion and especially Islam. At first, I argued against it. It did not make sense. But after the third year, I looked at him and ignored what he said. If that was what he wanted to believe, then I would leave it to him. I knew that he wanted me to adopt that view. My best response was just to ignore him.

In the lead up to the AB meeting at the end of the second year, I was confident of being released. Ustadz Mohamed was quite excited in the “counselling” session a few weeks before the AB meeting. He showed me a newspaper clipping of the Surabaya church bombings. The bombers included a family and three of their children. 28 people died in the bombings.

“See, they attacked churches” Ustadz Mohamed exclaimed “It is religious.”

“How many temples were attacked?” I asked him.

He looked uncertain. “None.”

“So why did they attack churches but not temples in Indonesia?”

He looked perplexed and unsure.

“Because in Indonesia, the church symbolises the west. This was not a religious attack. It was political” I explained.

During the AB, “scowl face” (he was still scowling) asked me if I heard about the attacks.

“Yes, the Ustadz showed me the article about it. And like I explained to the Ustadz, the motivation for the attacks seems to be politics not religion.”

“Did you hear about the Las Vegas shooting?” he continued.

“No, I did not.”

“There was a gunman who shot at people from on top a building.” He went on to describe the shooting.

“The Surabaya bombing was terrorism” he said.

“I agree with you. But I don’t agree it was due to religion. It was politically motivated” I replied.

“The Las Vegas shooting was also terrorism” he continued.

I kept quiet. I disagreed. Terrorism required political motivation. The shootings met the first three criteria of violence, on civilians and causing fear. But what was the objective? It looked more like mass murder than terrorism.

The Malay looking AB member did not have anything to ask me. When the judge offered the floor to him, he brushed it away, looking upset. “No, nothing” he dismissed.

I was not sure how it went. After the 2017 AB meeting (the midterm review), Eugene told me he was confident of the hearing. He thought it went well. I asked him about the questions that the AB members asked. They appeared hostile, especially the question on the jihad camp (Read here).

Eugene explained that the AB just wanted to see how I would react. He said I was calm and answered well.

Eugene addressed the AB members before I spoke. He said that I had spent time in detention and would like to be reintegrated into society. But of course, the AB did not release me. My detention carried on.

On 25th July 2018, about 3 weeks after the AB hearing, I was taken to the interrogation room. I had expected to meet with Iqbal and maybe another senior officer.

About 20 minutes later, Iqbal entered the room with S Krishnan, the director that issued the first detention order against me.

And once again, he looked angry.

He berated me. I was told to cooperate better.

I had been detained for two years and expected to be released. I had made plans to meet with my mother and Facetime with my wife and children. I was trying to control my excited anticipation.

His anger worried me.

“You think Islam is perfect” he charged. I nodded.

“We want you to accept the Islam we approve.”

I was surprised that he said it so openly and easily. The Islam the ISD approved. Iqbal looked at me and nodded his head.

“You argue about the Christmas greeting. Which means you are anti-secular. Which means you are an extremist. Which is on the same spectrum as being a terrorist” he bellowed.

I kept staring at him. What was he going on? Those were crazy links. Criticising Shanmugam’s demand for Muslims to wish Christians “Merry Christmas” meant I was on the same spectrum as being a terrorist?

And finally he told me the third reason.

“This is not about who has the better argument. We want you to internalise what we tell you.”

I had been discussing openly with them the whole two years. I realised that was not what the ISD wanted. They kept telling me to “talk” and share my thoughts. But what they wanted was to know how I think so they could change my views. What they wanted was for me to just listen and accept what they said. No matter how silly their arguments.

“You know the result right?” he asked condescendingly. “Extension?”

“Yes extension.”

Subscribe below: