Siew Kum Hong also kind of agree with detention without trial although this doesn’t come out quite clearly in TOC where he is part of the leadership. But again, he says he ‘usually’ can accept the need for preventive detention, that can also mean he might not. I suspect it has something to do with the safeguards and reviews mechanism, maybe he has a special well-kept Jewish machine to look inside the minds of terrorists? Just kidding. He sees the speech as filled with strawmen while maybe the other side will see Siew filled with cheemness and –isms. If Singapore got anti-terrorism act, I will vote for Siew Kum Hong to sit on the Advisory Board because zheng hu still own him one more term of NMP.
As usual wtf, the bloody online debate cannot get itself sorted out, it’s like stirring granny panties at high speed in soapy water and one would mistake it to be a lacy t-back of a young shenton way exec. People calling for anti-terror law to replace ISA, another calling for judicial review of the detentions, others say ISA perpetuate climate of fear, ex-detainees call for the abolishment of ISA, some calling for COI of Marxists arrests, but almost everyone miraculously agrees with terrorists being locked away since 2001 with nearly no one paying attention to them and hardcore gang leaders, loan sharks and drug lords being detained without trial under Criminal Law (Temporary Provision).
Let’s be clear, Singapore and Malaysia never kena bomb is not because of ISA but economic progress, social safety nets and relative religious freedom (we did it despite a ban on open sale of porn). However, for the radical and violent, these creature and spiritual comforts are irrelevant once they have decided to hijack Islam for political ends.
The ISA was designed to deal with evil who want to bomb the holy raffles place and take out all the hot young babes to heaven with them. But the preventive nature of ISA upsets many, including me, as it runs contrary to basic tenets such as “innocent unless proven guilty”, “right to a fair trial” and “retributive punishment”.
Detention without trial is the crux of the matter. The spectrum of the debate can be reduced to a utilitarian and dentological ethics approach. A utilitarian approach (the ends) would argue that detention without trial is necessary evil given the dire consequences and to ensure that ordinary lives can still go on normally. A dentological approach (the means) would argue that detention without trial is unethical and potential perpetrators should be brought to trial soonest thus ensuring that civil liberties are protected. One Ah Beng approach and the other Ang Mo Pai principled approach.
But once again our so called internet ‘debate’ looks like the uber cool clusterfuck granny panties stirring anti-pap show with no intellectual rigor. Only two parties have made their stance clear. The WP agrees with detention without trial and an advisory board but calls for the ISA to be replaced with anti-terror law. Former detainees Vincent Cheng, Teo Soh Lung et al disagrees vehemently with detention without trial and calls for the ISA to be repealed period. Paiseh, the third is PAP lor.
The rest of the faggot online civil society shift, squirm and hinge on to any and every argument to pander to their readers and supporters, like the ktv girl who act virgin to get more tips from you. If you see no need for detention without trial under any circumstances, and all cases can be trialed in open court, then by all means call for a COI or judicial review on every single ISA arrest made.
If there is a need for detention without trial, then calling for a judicial review and COI is plain bullshit. Detention without trial is preventive and non-public in nature, it’s not even a matter of guilty or innocent since no crime was committed, so how could a COI or any court for that matter decide conclusively and absolutely and account to the public transparently?! You trust no safeguards unless the ISA is administered by you.
Any decision made by the COI can be and would be called a “speculative” judgment. Ultimately, it’s an executive decision taken by the politicians which they argue is for the public good at the expense of the individual’s civil liberties. The question is: Do you trust Pinky Loong with it?
So I see some out there who state explicitly that detention without trial trust is against their beliefs and they will never trust PAP with it, that’s fine and great, it’s your right. The problem I have is those who agree with detention without trial but call for xxxxx safeguards and yyyyy inquiries only shy of asking Chee Soon Juan and Aristotle to sit on the Advisory Board; another bunch also agrees with detention without trial but never under the evil empire of Hatchet Lee and his wicked PAP.
Hand in hand they stir the soapy water with granny panties to make it look like the sexy and liberal t-back while many of the ill-informed and lethargic lap up the rhetoric like honey water.
My readers, are you a utilitarian or dentologist? A chow ah beng or ang moh pai? There is no right or wrong, but fence sitters and opportunists are frowned upon in such a serious matter. Fence sitters blur the fundamental questions and mislead others.
My friends, the real albatross over a more progressive Singapore political culture is the GRC system, the henpecked mainstream media, the materialistic and competitive Singapore culture, the over indulgence of our youths in electronic games (and not books) and not the ISA who has not deter those willing and able like Chen Show Mao, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim to rise to the highest organization in our land.