“But surely you can say good things about the PAP. Is there nothing good you can say?”
Article #27
After my detention was extended, I asked Iqbal if I could have a mattress. I had slept on a couple of blankets on the stone bench for two years and the pain did not subside. I was given a pillow in September 2017, more than a year after my detention. Having a pillow meant I could use two blankets instead of one to sleep on.
A few months into my detention, I was visited by two Justices of the Peace (JP). They asked if I had any complains to make. I asked what I could complain about. I was told they could write a report if my food was not good enough or other similar problems. At another occasion, a JP said I could tell them if the food was too salty. I was told the report would go to the highest levels.
I thought it was quite a waste of time to submit a report to the highest levels for salty food.
In the time I was in detention, I was visited by the JPs probably 5 times. No advance notice was ever given. A Gurkha officer would open the food vent, say “JP visit” and I would then face the wall with hands and legs parted to be patted down.
After my release, I read the ISD’s claims about visits by the JPs. They made it look as though these were independent auditors who could provide oversight on what went on in detention.
But the JPs did not ask me about what the ISD officers did. Even if they did, I would not have told them since that would mean I would be in greater danger from ISD abuse. Their oversight was more administrative than functional.
My discussions with a couple of these JPs were also instructive on how independent they were. In a meeting with a JP in 2018, I told one of them that I used to be a PAP supporter.
“You should have remained a PAP supporter” he reprimanded me. “Then this wouldn’t happen to you.”
The next year, I met with a Malay JP.
He told me that I was wrong to push for hijab to be allowed in schools.
“Singapore is a multiracial country it is not appropriate for us” he declared.
“Australia is more multicultural” I countered. “And it is not a problem.”
“I think most of the world is like us” he claimed.
There was really nothing much for me to share with the Justices. When I requested for a mattress about 4 months into my detention, I was told that it was “early days” and I would get used to sleeping on the stone bench.
After the extension, I requested for a mattress again. Iqbal told me he would arrange for one. About three months later, I was told that I could get a mattress if I gave up the pillow. I could not make that trade and had to make do with sleeping on blankets. As a compromise, they gave me another blanket to sleep on.
After Krishnan confirmed the extension, he tried to trivialise it. A few minutes after being told that my detention was extended, I told myself to pull myself up. I felt terrible for a few minutes. I bowed my head and thought about losing two more years of my life. Two more years away from my family. Two more years of pain. Two more years wasted.
“It’s only two years. Time will fly” he said.
“Have you watched Interstellar?” I asked him.
He had not.
“It is about ‘time’. How it is different depending on your perspective. Two years is short for you. I am in detention. It is long for me.”
But what bothered me was not simply the way he trivialised the detention. I was used to it. Iqbal liked to claim he knows how it feels to be detained because he had been in ISD for 30 years. Hafiz said it was like sitting in his bedroom with the door and windows closed.
Ustadz Mohamed said he envied me because being in detention meant I could read the Qur’an all day everyday.
“You don’t have to envy me” I told him. “The cell next to mine is empty.”
Somehow, none of them wanted it for themselves.
What bothered me was how ISD abused the system. They claimed I was detained for supporting terrorism.
After he told me the three reasons for the extension, I said to Krishnan, “I know that even without the false confessions, you would have found another reason to detain me.”
“That’s right” he replied.
After the meeting, I thought about what he said. He wanted me to accept the Islam the ISD approved, he claimed my criticism of Shanmugam’s statement meant I was on the same spectrum as a terrorist, and he wanted me to internalise what they told me.
Throughout the 2 years I was detained, the main discussions were about politics. I was told not to criticise the government.
I discussed the extension with my mother on her next visit. She told me she broke down when she found out.
Shireen was driving when she received the call and had to pull over because she couldn’t breathe.
My mother asked me what happened. I told her the three reasons Krishnan gave me.
“But I asked them” I said to her, “’if you think I am a threat to Singapore’s security, then why spend the last two years discussing politics with me? Why not discuss security?’ But they spent two years telling me not to criticise the government.”
“Stop it. Stop.” I turned to look at the ISD officer behind me. Nelson leaned forward and was slightly shrill.
“That is under OSA. You cannot tell your mother that”.
“How is this under Official Secrets Act?” I asked him. “Why can’t I tell my mother the discussions?”
“That is under OSA. I don’t want you to get in trouble.”
The extension however, brought several changes. Hafiz told me that he was continuing his studies in the UK for a year. Ben, a Chinese psychologist in his 40s took over and partnered Roslinda in the counselling sessions. Hafiz used to lead the sessions while Roslinda monitored our discussions. In the third year, Roslinda led the discussions while Ben monitored.
While Hafiz used to demand I stop discussing politics or criticise the government, Roslinda’s demand was for me to be more “balanced” in my criticisms of the PAP. She said that I should balance my criticisms with positive comments.
“I would have no problem if the PAP is balanced in reports about itself. But everytime the Singapore media or the PAP discuss its policies or leadership, they give a positive spin. I provide the other point of view to balance the PAP” I explained.
“But surely you can say good things about the PAP. Is there nothing good you can say?” she asked.
“The Workers’ Party runs Aljunied Town Council. And the PAP criticised everything they did. When has the PAP ever said anything positive about the Workers’ Party?” I countered.
Inevitably, the discussions with the psychologists were about politics. Their primary concern was to make sure I did not criticise the PAP. Or if I did, then I should do it deferentially or layer it with praises.
I was aware that the ISD wanted me to adopt whatever they told me. In my discussions with Iqbal, he repeated “we want you to internalise what we tell you”. The challenge for me, from the beginning of the third year was to act as though I was internalising their message.
I struggled with that. For the ISD, if someone rejected their messages, it was because he was egoistical. I regularly countered their claims, especially those that made little sense. I was told that my rejection of their demands was because of my ego.
Ajitpal Singh was usually brought in to discuss ego. One day in the third or fourth year, he met with me and Iqbal. He had a full beard.
“I am going for pilgrimage to India” he told me. He then told me about an earlier pilgrimage to a mountain in India.
“After the pilgrimage, I felt light. And I realised it’s because I have lost all my ego” he stared at me, as though drilling a message.
“And you know what filled me when I lost all my ego? Humility. I am filled with humility.”
I stopped myself from laughing. That was the first time I met someone who proudly told me he was filled with humility.
But I understood his message. He wanted me to accept their views. I tended to reply and show the weakness in their arguments. That did not work for the ISD. My job was to accept and internalise everything they told me.
During this period, Iqbal finally discussed terrorism briefly with me. He knew that one of my son Alauddin’s bestfriends’ name is Usama. The first year that he met with me, he would occasionally criticise people who named their children Usama.
“Why would they give their children that name” he complained. When Iqbal wants to discuss something indirectly, he would look away as though trying to imagine a scene.
“Usama was the name of the Prophet’s companion” I told him.
“These people, in western countries they will be stopped. They cannot go in. They get in trouble.”
“No, they won’t” I argued. “I know a lot of people with the name Usama. It would be illegal to profile them based on their names.”
“It’s like Stalin. Who would name their children Stalin?” he tried to argue.
“Usama is a given name. Stalin’s given name is Josef. People still use the name Josef.”
That discussion took place several times. He would criticise the name Usama and liken it to Stalin or Hitler. Finally, towards the end of the third year, he asked me what I thought about September 11th.
“If you support the attack on America because you think it is strong and you want to bring their economy down, ok. But if you support the attack because you support Al-Qaeda then no”.
This was a common tactic. They would offer two bad choices and tell me to choose one.
“Why would I support the attack?” I asked him.
Iqbal continued to stare at me.
“You know what I think about when someone mentions 9/11? I think about those people in the plane. I think about them knowing they were going to die and not able to do anything. I think about their fear, their pain, their families. You talk about geopolitical excuses. I am more interested in the people” I explained.
I found the discussion terrible and annoying. He behaved as though I supported violence even though he admitted it was obvious I did not. And he thought I could not see that both options were terrible. After years of weekly discussions, he acted as though I supported the attack on America or the killing of civilians.
Following that discussion, I realised they thought my doubt that Osama ben Laden or any Muslim being involved in the attacks meant I supported it.
“That is insane. How does saying ‘I do not think Muslims would commit these atrocities’ mean ‘I support these atrocities’?” I asked him. “I did not think Muslims, whether Osama or anyone else would do it because it can never be justified in Islam. If someone or some group claim to act for Islam, then they cannot commit these acts. My argument is an absolute rejection of these attacks.” (Read here)
It took me years to get them to understand how I approached these discussions. A large part of the problem is the ISD’s demand that I say only what they wanted me to say. I was not allowed to explain the way I think. When I tried to explain my perspective, they would shout me down and cut me off.
It was only after the Advisory Board meeting in 2019 that I realised they misused the term “Caliphate”. According to Iqbal, throughout my detention, whenever they used the term “Caliphate”, they meant ISIS. That revelation surprised me.
“Why would you refer the ‘Caliphate’ to ISIS?”
“Because they call themselves ‘Caliphate’” he explained. Ustadz Feisal said the same thing. They refer to ISIS as “caliphate” because the group used the term for themselves.
I was reminded of the times Chang, Tim and Charlton forced me to sign statements saying I referred to ISIS as the caliphate. I thought it was simply them trying to get me to sign false statements to justify my detention. The discussion with Iqbal made me realise the reason was more egregious than simply trying to justify detention.
They actually did not know I rejected ISIS. Even though I had publicly criticised ISIS, they assumed I supported it. When I was arrested, Chang repeatedly tried to tell me I supported ISIS, even though I criticised it.
“Your wife has good points?” he asked, smiling as though he was making a brilliant argument.
“Yes” I replied.
“Bad points?”
“Sure.” I was used to him insulting Shireen.
“More good than bad?”
“Yes.”
“That’s why you stay with her right? Because she has more good than bad. Just like ISIS. You don’t like what they do but they do more good than bad right? So you must support them.”
I was amazed with his logic. When have I ever said ISIS had good points? I told Hafiz about it and how silly ISD’s arguments were. I discussed Chang’s attempt to argue support if there were “good points”.
“Let me ask you something” I said to Hafiz, after describing Chang’s argument.
“Let’s say someone marries a beautiful woman, she is perfect in everyway, loving, caring, brilliant, gentle...everything. But there is just one problem. Every Saturday night she will sleep with your next door neighbour. More good than bad. But will you stay with her?”
Hafiz said he would not. “Exactly. We do not calculate and make cost-benefit analysis about people we love or groups we support or reject. We do not go....250 good 249 bad points so we support. There are some things that are key and affect our assessments. If they fundamentally go against our values, no matter how many “good points”, we will reject them.”
ISD’s attempt at logical arguments are driven by the outcome they wanted. They were so committed to their mistaken assessment that they would not contemplate a different possibility.
I asked Iqbal if the AB judge’s question about me advocating that Muslims should be able to migrate to a caliphate was about ISIS.
“Of course, it was about ISIS” he laughed, amused. “Everyone called them caliphate.”
It did not make sense to me. The term caliphate was more than a thousand years old. When Chang asked me what a caliphate was, I replied “It is the political entity representing the ummah.” He smiled and said he could not describe it better.
I realised in the discussion with Iqbal, that Chang would have thought I meant ISIS represented the ummah. Insane.
Iqbal reiterated that they referred to ISIS as a caliphate because that was the term ISIS used for themselves.
“So what if they call themselves caliphate? If I call myself the most handsome man, will you call me the most handsome man? If someone points to dogshit and tell you that is chocolate, will you call it chocolate too? Because I can tell you something. You keep calling that dogshit chocolate and someone looking for chocolate will eat that dogshit.”
During the third year, I learned more about the psychologists too. I had asked them where they went to school. In the first few months, Hafiz told me he went to Anderson Junior College. According to Roslinda, she went to Yishun Junior College.
In the third year, Roslinda claimed to have gone to Anderson. I told her that was where Hafiz said he went to.
“I could go to the same school as him” she snapped.
A few months later, she told me she went to Catholic Junior College.
“You either really messed up and got kicked out of school several times or you lied to me.”
She smiled guiltily.
“We are not allowed to tell you anything. So yes, I lied.”
Continued in the next article.