Function 8

17/03/2026

02/03/2026

TAN WAH PIOW lives in exile since 1975 when he was just an Architecture student at the local university. He was convicted by District Judge, TS Sinnathuray for rioting inside the trade union premises (PIEU), an offence he vehemently deny till this day. He served 8 months in jail.

Wah Piow has authored several books about his exile and court conviction. Yesterday he launched another book titled A DIALOGUE ACROSS CIVILISATION, THE POLIS AND THE PEOPLE in Johor Bahru. It is his first foray into philosophy and playwriting!

More than 20 Singaporeans, including members of Function 8 attended the launch. It was refreshing to meet up with the man much maligned by our government and yet survived so well today, having established his career as a well known barrister in London despite all travails. He travels the globe today and is always surrounded by supportive and loyal friends wherever he goes.

Read what he has written. Just a small book of 140 pages and costing only S$20. Buy it from Function 8 or Word Image today.

19/02/2026

Annual Chu San lunch held on the 3rd day of the Lunar New Year.

This get together of old comrades and their families who have suffered immensely under the PAP government have been going on since the Late Mr Lim Chin Siong returned from England where he was banished to in 1973. The significance of these annual gatherings is that it has led to the proliferation of ideas of how to balance the one sided history presented by the PAP and its powerful propaganda machines.

Today we find many books published on Operation Coldstore (1963) and other stories.about how the left was decimated.

Jia yu Old Left! You have inspired new generations never to forget our true history!

12/02/2026

CAN IDEALISM DISAPPEAR WITH AGE? by Teo Soh Lung

It was interesting to hear and read Minister K Shanmugam’s speech at the launch of his book, Policy, Fairness and Compassion and reported interviews he gave to the press. (https://tinyurl.com/ 5n6fzadn).

I was particularly intrigued by the candid revelation of his idealism when he was a fresh member of parliament and later, his hardened attitude towards indefinite detention without trial and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The Straits Times reported:

“As a fresh-faced MP elected to the Chong Pang seat of Sembawang GRC in 1988, the 29-year-old private sector lawyer had said that laws such as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), the Internal Security Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) “(nagged) our conscience”.

But as a minister, he has tightened the MRHA, and increased its penalties. He has also gone back to Parliament once every five years to seek the extension of the CLTPA.”

He went on:

“It’s an old adage – in your 20s, if you’re not idealistic, you don’t have a heart. In your 40s, if you’re still idealistic, you don’t have a head. I mean, you should have both,” he quipped.”

I wonder if he was ever idealistic? Can idealism disappear so swiftly as one ages and become one of the most powerful minister in government? Contrast what he said as a minister with what Dr Lim Hock Siew said at the age of 78 when The Fajar Generation was launched. He had spent 20 years in prison, without trial under the the PAP government. Dr Lim said:

“Now some of you may have heard that when you are young you are idealistic, when you’re old, you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals or have sold their ideals for self-interest. Age should not wither one’s ideals or convictions.

If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of expression and application of these ideals and convictions, having the benefit of a youthful experience. And a life without convictions, without idealism, is a mere meaningless existence, and I’m sure most of you will agree that as human beings, we are worthy of a life much more meaningful than just that.” (Remembering Dr Lim Hock Siew OUR FREEDOM FIGHTER p. 37).

Detention without trial nagged at the conscience of the member of parliament when he was 29. But when he became a minister, he tightened these unjust laws and increased the penalties. Did he lose his youthful idealism or did he trade it for self-interest.? Was he following the precedent of Lee Kuan Yew who spoke passionately against detention without trial but swiftly amended all laws to the detriment of the people when he came to power?

(Readers can download for free the booklet below at our blog.)

29/01/2026

PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION & FREEING CROWS by Teo Soh Lung

In the process of decluttering, I found a very interesting article about our Attorney General, Lucien Wong when he was nine months into his job. (ST 21 Oct 2017). He was interviewed about prosecutorial discretion.

Throughout his interview, he emphasised the importance of "public interest" when the AGC considers whether a person who commits an offence should be charged in court. He said that every case is deliberated carefully and prosecutorial discretion exercised. For minor offences, offenders are let off with a warning. "Every case has to be assessed WITH SKILL, WISDOM, LEGAL ACUITY AND COMPASSION."

I was in the States Court yesterday when the 77 year old Tan See Chee was charged and pleaded guilty to the offence of committing mischief under s. 427(1) of the Penal Code. This offence carries a term of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, or with fine or with both.

Tan was not represented in court. When the prosecution's statement of facts was read to him, he told the court that he didn't intend to cause damage or destruction of any property. He was visibly upset at the word "intent". All he did was cut three cable ties (which probably cost less than 50 cents) and 3 birds flew off.

The judge asked him if he was qualifying his plea of guilt and claiming trial. After some clarification from the young prosecutor which I couldn't quite comprehend as I didn't look at the law until now, Tan decided to unequivocally plead guilty. He was fined $500 or one day's imprisonment.

Looking at the law now, I realise that Tan was not charged with simple mischief under s. 425 of the Penal Code which carries a penalty of 2 years or with fine or both under s. 426 but with Mischief for causing DISRUPTION TO KEY SERVICE, ETC (emphasis mine) under s. 427(1) of the Penal Code which carries a very heavy penalty of 10 years or with fine or with both. To be fair to the prosecution, she didn't ask for a term of imprisonment.

Why was Tan charged under s. 427(1) which carries such a severe penalty instead of s. 425 of the Penal Code? Was prosecutorial discretion considered and exercised with skill, wisdom, legal acuity and compassion by the AGC? Was the act of releasing 3 crows a disruption to "key service?"

Is the culling of crows a key service? I can understand that a disruption of water or electricity would be a disruption to key services but I cannot see how crow culling can constitutes a key service.

Tan's case was mentioned a few weeks ago. Did any senior prosecutor reconsider his case since he told the court that he was pleading guilty? The AGC knew that Tan was unrepresented.

If Tan had a lawyer, I am quite sure that he would either claim trial or get the charge reduced to one of simple mischief under s. 426. He wouldn't need to pay the excessive fine of $500 or make the exhorbitant restitution of $370 for 50 cents worth of cable ties!

When Lucien Wong was nine months into his job, he was idealistic. He knew he didn't have the simple job of just taking care of a strong government. As he said in his interview, he had also to "make decisions on whether to charge individuals for criminal offence" even though investigating agencies (in Tan's case it was NParks) may make recommendations.

Tan was a first time offender. He said in mitigation that he went to Toa Payoh to eat lunch and on his way home he saw the distressed birds in the net. So out of compassion, he cut some cable ties. He didn't inform the judge that he is a retiree or unemployed. But looking at him and his age, surely the court need not be told. Did the AG exercised compassion?

According to the prosecutor, he cut 3 cable ties and 3 birds flew off. The contractor appointed to cull birds lost $60 i.e. $20 per bird. For that it had been over compensated with $370 paid by Tan. The company claimed that it had to pay an employee $280 for time and effort. Surely using 3 cable ties to fix the gaps in the net does not require compensation of $280! Furthermore, wasn't its staff paid a monthly salary and it is part of his job to fix nets? Was the company profiteering and NParks failed to scrutinise its claim?

I am disappointed with how Tan, an ordinary poor citizen was dealt with by the AGC. Also, what happened to the government/Law Society pro bono scheme? Why was Tan left alone to defend himself and a petition by nearly 600 Singaporeans left unheeded by the AGC?

Decades ago, the Late Chief Justice Yong Pung How exercised his judicial discretion when he ordered a review of a rioting case that involved several youths. They were sentenced to jail with several strokes of the cane. The cases subsequently came before the CJ and he removed the sentence of caning. Will the AG seek a review of Tan's case? Compared to the case of rioting, it is a minor case. But remember. Tree roots don't crack the pavement in a day. It is how the prosecution of offences in States Courts that have the most impact on our society.

24/01/2026

FreedomFilmFest 2026: Micro-Doc Film Grant Call for Applications

So many stories never make it to the screen. Lost in Transmission aims to change that by backing community storytellers & emerging creators with stories that often stay quiet, unnoticed, or unspoken.

Function 8 supports and funds films and documentaries (not exceeding 10mins) that blend creative and factual approaches to capture moments of resilience, identity, and collective life in Singapore.

23/01/2026

COMET IN OUR SKY, Lim Chin Siong in History edited by Poh Soo Kai

(In the process of decluttering, Teo Soh Lung found the text of a speech she delivered at the launch of the new edition of Comet in Our Sky on 9 August 2015. Below is her speech.)

***

When the first edition of Comet in Our Sky was launched in Kuala Lumpur in 2001, I did not attend because I was not aware of it. I only came to know about the book when Tan Jing Quee (its editor) asked me to help him sell some copies. And that was the first time that I read about Lim Chin Siong.

Let me tell you how important that book was to me then and now.

I was educated in an English school, a Catholic school. Even though my school was located along Middle Road, I knew nothing about the activities that went on at the trade union along the same road. I lived in another world.

I remember when I was in school, buses occasionally did not run because the drivers had gone on strike. I was very happy when that happened because it gave me the opportunity to walk home with my brother and sister, stopping by the Singapore River to watch the boats! I didn’t know the planning of the strikes originated in Middle Road.

My father managed a photo studio not too far from Middle Road. He was effectively trilingual and I used to see the Chinese daily on the table in the reception hall. Operation Coldstore took place when I was 14 years old but I have no recollection of the horrendous incident in history. My father would have read about that incident but he said nothing at home. He and my eldest brother who helped him in the studio probably thought that it was best to remain neutral. I am quite sure they were aware of the arrests in 1963 and even those in the 1950s because their studio specialized in portraiture and was popular with university graduates who took their graduation photographs there. I have seen advertisements in the students’ publication Fajar.

Looking back, I think my father didn’t want any of his English educated children to be involved in politics because he probably knew that politics was dangerous especially when you are on the opposite side of the PAP! He rather preferred to be neutral and minded his own business, taking photographs of Lee Kuan Yew, David Marshall, Dr Lee Siew Choh and British officials like Sir William Goode, the attorney general and several colonial judges.

I had the good fortune of meeting Lim Chin Siong in the early 1980s when I think he was then working with his brother and Jing Quee in nearby Colombo Court. It was my misfortune that I didn’t know Singapore history then and hence missed the opportunity of conversing intelligently with the great man.

So you see, unlike Chinese educated students of my time, I lived in total ignorance. And so it was absolutely important that decades after the incident, Tan Jing Quee and K S Jomo published Comet in Our Sky in 2001. It was the first time I learned about the intrigues and cruelty of politics and the dishonesty of the British.

Re reading the chapters in the book today depresses me. I don’t remember feeling depressed when I read the first edition of Comet in Our Sky. But now, re reading it depresses me and I had to read the chapters with many breaks. I am no longer able to remain detached and uninvolved like historians digging out the past or lawyers fighting the causes of their clients because I have come to know many of the survivors of Operation Coldstore who have spent decades in prison. What they and their families went through was uninmaginable. I only wish that the younger PAP leaders would read more books like Comet so that they too will learn about the ugly side of PAP’s history and reflect on the evil deeds of Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues.

To know the life of Lim Chin Siong, and here I am very grateful that Jing Quee has written such an eloquent piece about him in the book and M K Rajakumar had given us a more detached description of Lim and analysed his strength and weaknesses, comparing him with the savvy Lee Kuan Yew who was networking with people in high places, is not only to know his humility, oratorical skill, greatness and courage but also the depth of depravity of Lee Kuan Yew. For his personal glory and power, Lee was prepared to carry out grave injustices to his comrade and his family and colleagues. Lee was a bully, taking advantage of Lim Chin Siong who was ten years younger than him. I cannot fathom the cruelty of the man when he acted as Lim’s lawyer during his imprisonment for the purpose of betraying him. Lim said in his manuscript which is translated by his brother, Chin Joo that he was kept isolated from the rest and was not informed of what happened outside. Jing Quee told me that he was kept in the refractory block, close to the death row prisoners.

Before the publication of Comet in Our Sky in 2001, there was a coffee table book published by Melanie Chew in 1996 which contains an interview with Lim Chin Siong. But that book cost $200 and few could afford it.

It took 38 years after Coldstore for Comet in Our Sky to be published and to be launched in KL and quietly sold in Singapore. It tells a great deal. We can say that it was fear that prevented the left from writing about the past. But I’d like to say that it speaks a lot about the courage and foresight of Jing Quee and Jomo to bring this book to light.

It is important for young Singaporeans to read this book and to understand why Singapore is what she is today. We were once a vibrant society until Lee Kuan Yew came to power and destroyed everything that was anathema to him.

We are very fortunate that Dr Poh Soo Kai has finally edited and published this new edition after a decade of it running out of print. Dr Poh works very hard. At the age of 84, he should be relaxing. Instead, he is working harder than a man half his age. Maybe this is to compensate for the loss of 17 long years in prison!

We applaud his determination and stamina to show up the government that it has not been telling the truth because they just want to be in power. “Truth”, Dr Poh said to the BBC recently “is on his side and he must explain that for future generations and for history.” We salute Dr Poh.



Comet in Our Sky (new edition) is available as an ebook from Amazon and other online outlets.

09/01/2026

THE PRICE OF RETAINING POWER by Teo Soh Lung

Reading this news cutting of 31 October 1986 today, and knowing the history of Singapore and the PAP better than nearly 40 years ago, I can say that the PAP’s method of control has not changed. Its attitude towards those who disagree with them is simply “FINISH THEM OFF”.

Our first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew was a lawyer. E.W. Barker was his law minister. He was also a lawyer. Between the two of them, it was easy to use laws to wipe out any opponent. Anyone who poses a potential threat to the survival of the PAP would be “nipped in the bud”. If they can be won over, invite them to join the party. If not, just finish them off. Use any legal means to do that. It does not matter because everything is as Dr Lim Hock Siew who was detained for 20 years without trial puts it, “Everything is by the law”. They make the laws and everything they do is legal.

The first two paragraphs of the news cutting are interesting. I recall that I was asked at the select committee hearing about my involvement with the Workers’ Party. I was not a party member but I did help the party during one election. A fellow lawyer, Mr M.P.D. Nair asked me to be his polling agent. I agreed. As everyone knows, it wasn’t a big thing to be a polling agent. Indeed it was a citizen’s duty to be a polling agent. But at the select committee hearing, the home affairs minister, Mr S. Jayakumar made it sound like it was illegal to be one. I was surprised and wondered what he was up to. If he thought I would deny helping the WP, he was sadly mistaken. I admitted. He persisted in asking some silly questions. On seeing that he was getting no where with my honest answers, Lee Kuan Yew dramatically snatched his papers and took over the cross examination.

The third paragraph reminded me that the Law Society conducted an extraordinary general meeting at the request of 62 members who sought the withdrawal of the Amendment to the Legal Profession Bill. The minimum number of members who wished to call a meeting at that time was 25. So 62 members was a very credible number. I think members were all unhappy with the bill which primarily sought the removal of Mr Francis Seow as its president.

Seow was elected as the president by members of the Council of the Law Society in late 1985. It was none of the business of Lee or his ministers to interfere in the leadership of the society. Between Lee and Barker however, they must have scoured through Seow’s personal history. They managed to dig out some old offence which took place decades ago. They made them disqualifying conditions for anyone to hold the office of president of the Law Society. It was most deplorable. Lee and Barker enacted the new law to take retrospective effect and thus to disqualify Seow as president.

The Law Society should have challenged the constitutionality of the law. I think they would have the entire backing of members back then. Sadly, the Council did not do anything. What was worse and utterly disgraceful was that its council did not hold any meeting to discuss the bill with members. Council members did not see it necessary to defend its president and the future of the Law Society!

And so it was left to ordinary members to defend its president and their Law Society. Sixty-two members called for the meeting. I was the proposer and Mr Patrick Seong was the seconder.

In later years, I discovered that the council did discuss the holding an extraordinary general meeting but the majority opposed the proposal. Perhaps members of the Council predicted that those who called the meeting would be arrested under the ISA!

Before 1986, members of the Law Society were generally not interested in standing for election to become members of its council. Council members were largely lawyers from big firms who were generally important to the government. The sudden interest of lawyers from small law firms standing for election to Council may have rung an alarm bell to Lee and Barker. They probably jumped to the conclusion that a “revolution” was on the way to turn the society into a socialist front! The old idea of communist united front must have terrified them.

While I can understand Lee and Barker’s fear of a “revolution,” I think it is most irresponsible of them to decimate decent citizens who want the best for their society and their country. A responsible government will listen to the people. If they cannot find solutions to the issues raised by the people, they should be voted out. Endless tweaking of laws to ensure that the party survives at all costs by decimating any form of competition from dissidents is most unhealthy for the survival of Singapore.

But throughout the history of the PAP, the only means to ensure survival is the crushing of dissent by laws. They have done that since independence in 1965. The “offences” they legislate have become more and more petty. Indeed, they have become ridiculous. How can it be an offence for one person to hold an A4 size sheet of paper with a smiley face be an offence?

The PAP have succeeded in retaining power for six decades at the cost of sacrificing the people of Singapore. Will it lose power one day?

04/01/2026

Life Journeys is a documentation of the joint exhibition of Teo Eng Seng and his sister, Teo Soh Lung held at Muse House in the 1990s. While Eng Seng sculptured and painted outside prison, his sister wrote poems and sketched in prison.

In solitary confinement, drawing and conversations with small creatures are essential for survival.The artist who is free paints and sculpts to give life to ...

02/01/2026

02/01/2026

GOODBYE 2025 by Teo Soh Lung

Function 8 ended 2025 the Singaporean way! Meeting old friends and supporters too busy with work, family and activities during normal times. We chated, joked, ate and sang songs, sentimental and activist songs and songs that even reminded several former ISA prisoners of prison days. DONNA DONNA DONNA, a song about a poor calf bound for slaughter reminded one of them about those unjust days that made singers of all those locked up within grey concrete walls. Bad experiences never really go away. They are buried deep in the mind and emerge when least expected.

The gathering did not forget two of the many who are now in self exile, namely Roy Ngerng and Terry Xu. How can a government deprive citizens of their country when all they did was to disagree with its policies? How can it enact and implement draconian laws against opponents? Roy Ngerng had criticised the CPF scheme and Terry Xu had steadfastly given voice to the voiceless in his online journal THE ONLINE CITIZEN. So our singers sang ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS MY CPF for them.

Among the guests were survivors of Operation Coldstore. They sang I LOVE MALAYA. Will the young PAP leaders attempt to know their history, dedication and contribution towards the independence of Singapore. They have made Malaya their home in their youth and many had been detained without trial.

Returning to the present troubled side of Singapore, Iris Koh reminded us of Ravi M whose courageous and controversial life had sparked expressions of both love and hate. She dedicated Joni Mitchell's BOTH SIDES, NOW to M Ravi.

Life is already very difficult to live to the fullest. Why would a government which has the duty to ensure a better life for its citizens, bully them and demand conformity? Why crush their lives?

So while we enjoyed a great year end party, we are also reminded of the troubled times we face today and days gone.

Happy New Year!

13/12/2025

The festival has begun. Come and meet the authors!