Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 70, 1963

Caso núm. 325 (Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 14-FEB-63 - Cerrado

1. 13. The complaint is contained in telegrams addressed directly to the I.L.O by the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association on 14 February and 9 March 1963. The Government of the United Kingdom furnished its observations on the complaint by a communication dated 8 May 1963.
2. 14. The United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and has declared the provisions of these Conventions to be applicable without modification in Singapore. The United Kingdom has also ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has reserved its decision regarding the application of its provisions in Singapore.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 15. It is alleged in the complainant's communication dated 14 February 1963 that 110 trade union and other leaders in Singapore have been arrested. In the communication dated 9 March 1963 it is alleged that further arrests, including that of Mr. Jamit Singh, General Secretary of the complaining organisation, have brought the total of those detained to over 120.
2. 16. In a communication dated 8 May 1963 the Government of the United Kingdom declares that the arrests complained of, including that of Mr. Jamit Singh on 8 March 1963, were authorised by the Singapore Internal Security Council, representing the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, for the reasons set out in the statement and memorandum which it issued on 2 February 1963. The arrested persons are being detained pursuant to the Singapore Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955. Further, Mr. Jamit Singh was recently convicted of the offence of criminal breach of trust relating to the funds of the complaining organisation and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
3. 17. According to the statement issued by the Singapore Internal Security Council on 2 February 1963, the Barisan Sosiali Party formed in July 1961 and the other United Front organisations with which it is associated are under the control of the Communists, who use them in their attempt to sabotage the formation of Malaysia; their readiness to engage in violence and unconstitutional methods is shown by their open support of the armed revolt in Brunei and their close connections with its leaders. The Council was agreed that action to safeguard the security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia could not wait until after 31 August 1963, when Singapore is due to enter that Federation. The Council decided, therefore, that certain persons known to be deeply implicated in the United Front working for Communists, or in some cases for other subversive ends, must be arrested. The persons arrested are detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance; all those of Federation origin are to be sent back to the Federation of Malaya.
4. 18. The accompanying memorandum outlines the history of Communist activity in Singapore since 1955 and of their attempts to keep Singapore a separate State. After a final, unsuccessful bid for a government majority in Singapore in July 1961, declares the Council, the Communists set up the party of the Barisan Socialist as their " own front party "; Communist leaders of that party are also advisers to important trade unions. The left-wing trade unions, it is stated, set up in June 1962 a Singapore Trades Union Working Committee to maintain liaison to co-ordinate anti-government activity of these unions and that of political parties. The memorandum also outlines the alleged international political activity of the Communists in the five territories of the future Federation.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 19. In several earlier cases, in which it was alleged that trade union officers or members had been preventively detained, the Committee has expressed the view that measures of preventive detention may involve a serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights which it would seem necessary to justify by the existence of a serious emergency and judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period, and that it should be the policy of every government to take care to ensure the observance of human rights and especially of the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment.
2. 20. Because of the fact that the detention may involve serious interference with trade union rights and because of the importance which it attaches to the principle of fair trial, the Committee has continued to press the governments to bring detainees to trial in all these cases, irrespective of the reasons put forward by the governments for the detention, until such time as it has had before it information as to their trial by due process of law or, alternatively, as to their release.
3. 21. In this respect, however, the present case presents certain special characteristics. Firstly, no allegation is made to the effect that the arrest of the trade unionists concerned was due to their trade union activities. Secondly, apart from the case of Mr. Jamit Singh, which raises other particular features, the complainants do not name any of the trade union leaders alleged to have been detained or even state how many have been detained-their first telegram refers simply to " 110 trade union and other leaders ". In such circumstances the Committee cannot feel justified in asking a government first to identify an indefinite number of unnamed trade union leaders preparatory to giving information concerning their respective cases.
4. 22. While the present position of Mr. Jamit Singh would normally have been dealt with by the Committee according to its practice in similar cases in the past if his case had remained simply one of preventive detention under the security legislation, it would now appear from the Government's reply that, at some time since he was detained on 8 March 1963, he has been convicted by a court of an offence of dishonesty punishable under the ordinary law of the land-criminal breach of trust relating to trade union funds-and is now serving a term of 18 months' imprisonment, so that there can be no question of regarding him as a detained person who has not been brought to trial.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 23. In these circumstances, without prejudice to the possible examination on their merits of any future cases of alleged specific application of the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to trade union leaders or members, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the present case does not call for further examination.