Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 108, 1969

1. 86. As stated in paragraph 125 of the 90th Report of the Committee, this case has already been the subject of several interim reports s during the period when first the Government of the United Kingdom and then that of the Federation of Malaya were responsible for the international relations of Singapore, before Singapore became independent on 9 August 1965, after which it became a member of the I.L.O. with effect from 25 October 1965. When Singapore joined the I.L.O. it confirmed the obligations deriving from 21 International Labour Conventions, including the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), but not 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. 87. The Committee had made definitive recommendations concerning various allegations before it to the Governing Body, which has approved them. The following paragraphs will therefore deal only with the allegations outstanding, which concern the arrest and detention of trade unionists.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning the Arrest and Detention of Trade Unionists
  88. 88 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.
  89. 89 When it last examined the case, at its November 1967 session, the Committee had before it a communication from the Government dated 26 September 1967, in which the Government stated that the basis on which the only person remaining in detention was detained was no longer the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, but a banishment order issued against him under the Banishment Ordinance, 1959, and that he was detained pending the execution of this order. The Government added that the person in question had applied for a writ of habeas corpus but that this had been refused by the High Court, which considered that there was complete legal justification for his detention.
  90. 90 The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body among other things to request the Government to be good enough to specify the exact reasons for the banishment order made against the person in question as well as the final outcome of the case.
  91. 91 This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body at its 170th Session (November 1967) and the request for further information contained in it was brought to the knowledge of the Government by means of a letter dated 24 November 1967. The Government has replied in a letter dated 24 September 1968.
  92. 92 In this letter the Government recalls that the person in question was originally detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which had been promulgated to deal with subversion endangering the security of the State. It indicates that in these circumstances it would not be in the interests of national security to reveal the motives underlying the banishment order issued against the person in question. The Government finally states that this person is still in detention pending the execution of the banishment order issued against him.