OPERATION LALANG STATEMENT

Below is the statement that Lim Chin Chin wrote in 1988, months after her release from detention under the Internal Security Act.

STATEMENT

I was arrested in my home by six policemen and women at about 10.30 on the night of 27th October, 1987 under the country's Internal Security Act (ISA). I was told that the reason for my arrest was that I was acting/am likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the nation. I insisted that I be told the specific activities that I have been involved in that were considered prejudicial to the security of the nation but was not. As a result, I refused to sign the arrest order.

They searched the house, especially my bedroom and bookshelves, and took away 69 items, among them my books, files and passport. I asked for a search warrant but was told that they do not need a search warrant under the ISA. I was not allowed to bring anything along with me, except my Bible and a change of underwear, both of which I had specifically requested for.

I was taken in an unmarked car to two police stations and then transferred into a black maria and taken to an unknown destination in the city which I later discovered to be the Police Remand Centre (PRC).

At the PRC, I was stripped of everything and given loose fitting prison clothes to wear. I was denied my underwear and footwear. I was even deprived of my spectacles, which I need to have on all the time. My Bible and change of underwear, which I had brought along earlier, were also taken away from me. I was fingerprinted and, later, photographed like a criminal with a number (124/87). I was blindfolded and handcuffed and taken to a small, extremely filthy and windowless cell with a "bed” comprising a cement bunk with a thin overlay of plywood and a toilet.

A few minutes later, I was called out, handcuffed and blindfolded (our 'normal' procedure of being moved about in the PRC), and led to the interrogation room where I remained until about lunch time the next day.

While under interrogation, I had a powerful aircondition blowing down my back all the time, causing me to break out in cold sweat. The interrogators, warm and comfortable in their jackets, verbally abused and threatened me.

After dinner, I was hauled out again for interrogation.

This went on day after day. For more than a week, I was interrogated for about 15 hours a day (from about after breakfast to about midnight) with breaks only for lunch, dinner and visits to the toilet.

I was not allowed any visits until the fifteenth day after my arrest - and, even then, only for 10 minutes. The following visit was 15 days after the first. This time, I was allowed half an hour. Subsequently, I had visits about every eight days. However, all visits were closely monitored and only close family members were allowed.

Besides these visits, I saw no one except my guards and interrogators. I was kept in solitary confinement for 60 days.

Initially, I suffered severe headaches and pains in both my arms and back, due to deprivation of my spectacles and the tension and long hours of sitting on poor chairs during interrogation.

All kinds of charges (resulting from their distortion of facts and outright lies) were thrown at me - all of which I vehemently denied. I was threatened, for example, with two weeks of total solitary confinement in a completely dark cell if I refused to talk and admit to the charges. I was made to fear for my safety and sanity.

I requested for legal counsel and representation, but they laughed at me, saying that I had no such rights under the ISA.

On Christmas Day, 1987, I was issued with a two-year Detention Order, together with the Grounds for Detention and Allegation of Facts. I was accused of being a Marxist and of using Marxist analysis, as defined by them, e.g., social/class analysis, conscientisation and liberation theology, in my work with the people, thus furthering the Communist ideology in Malaysia. Although I had acknowledged the use of conscientisation and liberation theology, I had denied that they were necessarily Marxist/Communist-inspired. I had also categorically denied that I was a Marxist or Communist, nor was I trying to further the Communist cause. Rather, my work and involvement had been prompted by my understanding of the Christian faith imperative to help the poor, oppressed and downtrodden in an effective way. Nevertheless, the Special Branch of the Police persisted in preferring these charges against me. Not only that, the allegation of facts were also factually wrong.

The next day, I was sent up north to another detention centre in Kamunting, together with seven others, in two unmarked vans. We were blindfolded on our way out for the first part of the journey and handcuffed all the way there, for more than 250 kilometres! We were accompanied by as many armed guards.

I stayed in Kamunting with three other women for more than five months. We were very isolated, having very little contact with the other male detainees and practically no contact with the outside world, except for close family members and lawyers.

The Special Branch continued to meet me in Kamunting. On 18th March 1988, I went before the Advisory Board, accompanied by my lawyer, and denied the accusations levelled against me. Under the ISA, which allows for indefinite detention without trial, the Advisory Board replaces trial in an open court. However, the Board, unlike the courts which are more independent, has. only advisory capacities and can only give recommendations. It does not have the power to enforce its decisions.

On 3rd June, 1988, I was suddenly told to pack my things. I was released from the Kamunting Detention Centre on a Suspended Order of Detention with conditions restricting my geographical movement and freedom of speech, association and involvement, especially in trade union and political activities. Among other things, I also have to report to the police station on the first of every month.

Even after my release, I continued to face harassments from the Special Branch. Recently, I was called up by the Special Branch again for another interview (the third since my release six months ago) and warned that I would be rearrested if I persisted in my activities of giving support to the families of the detainees and involvement in so-called "political” activities. This time, as with the previous two occasions, I was asked to divulge information about my friends.

The previous two times I was called up, my car and my husband's van were vandalised. On the first occasion (mid-July), my car was vandalised after I flatly refused to become an 'informer' for them. The vandalising happened one week after the interview. I was also reminded that I was on a Suspended Order of Detention and that I could be taken back in anytime.

On the second occasion (early September), my husband's van was vandalised a few days' prior to my second interview. And, again, I was asked to inform on my friends and the on going activities. In between, I had stones thrown into my house once and several strange phone calls.

I do not know the people behind all these, but the timing of the events leads me to believe that they were deliberate, rather than accidental. Besides weird phone calls, I have never experienced any of these problems prior to my arrest and detention, Inevitably, the harassments have affected my mother, my husband and me psychologically.

In addition, I have not been allowed to return to my previous job, although my employers have indicated their willingness to take me back. It is also difficult for me to get another job.

I am, by profession, a trained social worker. However, social work is not a very lucrative nor well developed profession in Malaysia. Besides the government sector (which is now closed to me because of my record), the only other avenues open to me are the social service organisations which are, by and large, registered as societies. Presuming that these organisations do not mind employing me in spite of my record, I am still constrained by the Societies' Act which requires me to seek prior permission from the Registrar of Societies (in effect, the Special Branch) before I can assume work. Judging by their record in my present case (and in other cases as well), my chances that I would be allowed to work with these societies are very slim. Not only am I being prevented from paid employment (which I badly need for my daily sustenance), but I am also suffering a setback in my career, in that, I am prevented from pursuing the profession for which I have been trained.

And finally, I had just been married some three and a half months prior to my arrest. But I had already decided by then to cut down on my activities and devote time to starting a family. I would still like to do that, but not under such restrictive conditions and confining circumstances,

As a result, my husband, David, and I have decided to migrate. However, we will both continue to love Malaysia as the land of our birth.

Thank you.

~ P.S. I have received a letter from the Registrar of Societies rejecting my application to resume work. This means that I cannot return to my previous job.

Lim Chin Chin

Petaling Jaya

3rd December, 1988