Interim Report - Report No 95, 1967

Case No 194 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 17-FEB-59 - Closed

1. 156. As explained in paragraph 125 of the Committee's 90th Report, this case had already been the subject of 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 recognised that it would continue to be bound by 21 International Labour Conventions, including the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), but no longer including as hitherto 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. 157. When the Committee resumed its examination of the case at its session in May 1966 it submitted its definitive conclusions to the Governing Body in paragraphs 129 to 136 of its 90th Report with regard to the allegations relating to the registration and deregistration of trade unions. With regard to the allegations relating to detentions and arrests of trade unionists the Committee submitted a further interim report to the Governing Body in paragraphs 137 to 141 of its 90th Report; the present report is confined to these outstanding allegations.

Allegations relating to Detentions and Arrests of Trade Unionists

1. 158. Some 19 trade unionists were alleged originally to have been arrested and held in preventive detention in 1958. At different stages in its examination of the case the Committee noted the release of certain detainees on various dates until, by March 1963, only one of the original 19 persons concerned was still in detention.
2. 159. At its session in May 1966 the Committee had before it a communication dated 16 March 1966 from the Government of Singapore, stating that the detention order in respect of the remaining detainee was being reviewed regularly with a view to his release when he was no longer considered a security risk.
3. 160. In these circumstances the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 142 (b) of its 90th Report:
4. ......................................................................................................................................................
5. (i) to draw the attention of the Government of Singapore 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;
6. (ii) having regard to 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, to draw the attention of the Government of Singapore to the fact that three years have now elapsed since the Governing Body drew attention to the incompatibility of the continued detention of the trade unionist in question with the principle of fair trial enunciated in subparagraph (i) above, which is generally regarded as constituting one of the most fundamental human rights;
7. (iii) to request the Government 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 is now envisaged at an early date.
8. 161. These recommendations were approved by the Governing Body on 27 May 1966, in the course of its 165th Session, and were brought to the notice of the Government of Singapore by a letter dated 3 June 1966, to which the Government replied by a letter dated 20 January 1967.
9. 162. In this communication the Government states that the remaining detainee in question was 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 considers that there has been no infringement of trade union rights as such and adds that, in the circumstances, it has no further comments to make on the matter.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 163. With regard to the argument now put forward by the Government, the Committee wishes to point out, as it has done in a number of earlier cases in which governments appeared to maintain that a reply in general terms to the effect that detentions of trade unionists have been due to unlawful or subversive activity and not to their trade union activities should be regarded as adequately substantiated, that the question as to whether the matter in respect of which sentences have been imposed or detentions ordered is to be regarded as a matter relating to a criminal or 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. In previous cases, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested or detained for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions in question were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to furnish further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests or detentions and the precise reasons for them. If in certain cases the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to arrests or detentions of trade union leaders did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities, but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature. Finally, in all cases in which trade unionists have been detained, either for political offences or for common law crimes, the Committee has emphasised the importance it attaches to the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment by an impartial and independent judicial authority.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 164. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (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.