Informe provisional - Informe núm. 101, 1968

1. 205. As stated in paragraph 125 of the 90th Report of the Committee, this case has already been the subject of several interim reports during the periods when first the Government of the United Kingdom and then that of the Federation of Malaya were responsible in respect of Singapore, until Singapore became independent on 9 August 1965, becoming a member of the I.L.O with effect from 25 October 1965. When Singapore joined the I.L.O it stated that it wished to continue to be bound by 21 International Labour Conventions, including the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), but no longer, as hitherto, by the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84). Singapore has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
2. 206. Only one series of allegations remains outstanding, the Committee having submitted its definitive recommendations on the other series of allegations to the Governing Body, which approved them. The following paragraphs will therefore deal only with the allegations still outstanding, which concern the arrest and detention of trade unionists.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 207. It was originally alleged that 19 trade unionists had been arrested in 1958 and held in preventive detention. At different stages in its examination of the case, the Committee noted the fact that certain detainees had been released on various dates until, by March 1963, only one of the original 19 persons concerned was still in detention.
2. 208. When it last examined the case, at its meeting in February 1967, the Committee had before it a communication from the Government dated 20 January 1967 in which the latter stated that the only person remaining in detention had been detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, for activities which were prejudicial to the security of the country and which had nothing to do with trade union functions. The Government considered that there had been no infringement of trade union rights as such and added that, in the circumstances, it had no further comments to make.
3. 209. The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 164 of its 95th Report:
   • (a) to draw the attention of the Government of Singapore to the fact that the question as to whether the matter in respect of which detentions of trade unionists have been ordered is to be regarded as a matter relating to a criminal or a political offence or a matter relating to the exercise of trade union rights is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned in such a manner as to prevent the Governing Body from inquiring further into it;
   • (b) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which a government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
   • (c) to express its view that the fact that one of the 19 trade unionists arrested in Singapore as long ago as 1958 is still detained and has not yet been brought to trial is incompatible with the principle of fair trial enunciated in subparagraph (b) above, which is generally regarded as constituting one of the most fundamental human rights;
   • (d) to request the Government once again, having regard to the said principle and to the considerations set forth in paragraph 163 above, to inform the Governing Body, as a matter of urgency, whether it is intended that the person concerned shall now be given a fair trial without further delay, or, alternatively, whether his release at an early date is now envisaged.
4. 210. The above conclusions were approved by the Governing Body at its 168th Session (February-March 1967) and were brought to the notice of the Government by a letter dated 9 March 1967. The Government replied by a communication dated 26 September 1967.
5. 211. In this communication the Government states that the person in question is no longer detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, but is the subject of a banishment order served on him under the Banishment Ordinance, 1959; he is detained pending the execution of this order. The Government adds that the person in question applied for a writ of habeas corpus but that this was refused by the High Court, which considered that there was complete legal justification for his detention.