Operation Anne Boleyn: Is Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) Singapore’s Biggest Security Threat?

To jump to the relevant sections:

• Brief Context on the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB)
• Brief Context on the Internal Security Department (ISD)
• Operation Anne Boleyn: Kill Switch for Singapore’s President Tharman Shanmugaratnam
• House of Cards, Leadership Reshuffle: Under Operation Anne Boleyn, Lucien Wong Yuen Kai as President and Davinder Singh Sachdev s/o Amar Singh as Attorney General
• Lucien Wong Yuen Kai: Disreputable Misleadership
• Mercury Jamie Alice’s ISD Handler Unmasked: Hello Shawn
• Mercury: Actually a Victim of ISD’s Malice
• The CPIB: Yet Another Victim of ISD’s Malice

Brief Context on the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB)

According to the National Library Board of Singapore, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was established by the British colonial authorities in Singapore in September 1952. A few years later, in 1959, during Singapore’s handover and transition into its post-colonial status, the CPIB was significantly overhauled. This was under the local People’s Action Party’s (PAP) helm, as the party dominated the government after winning 43 out of 51 seats during the 1959 General Election.

According to its website, the CPIB is “the only agency authorised to investigate corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 and other related offences” in the country. As a government agency, it is currently parked under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), “operating with functional independence and is helmed by a director who reports to the Prime Minister”.

In Singapore, the anti-corruption process begins with the following steps:

1. Firstly, whistle-blowers submit requests or complaints to the CPIB. They are encouraged to provide as much information and evidence as possible in their submissions.
2. Secondly, if the Complaints Evaluation Committee (CEC) within the CPIB deems the case worth investigation, investigations are carried out. This includes corruption complaints (and thus corresponding inquiries and investigations) filed against the Prime Minister himself.
3. Thirdly, if the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent to the Director of the CPIB to investigate the case, but the CPIB deems the case worth pursuing, then the CPIB’s Director is procedurally allowed to approach the President for permission to bypass the Prime Minister’s objection and carry out the investigation nonetheless.

Brief Context on the Internal Security Department (ISD)

According to the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, the Internal Security Department (ISD) was likewise established while Singapore was still under British colonial governance, in August 1948. It was originally the Singapore Police Special Branch, which was deliberately set up and tasked to counter the Communist Party of Malaya that was now posing a threat to the British, despite having previously helped combat the Japanese Occupation during the Pacific War of World War 2. From the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, the Singapore Police Special Branch collaborated closely with the British and subsequently the PAP-led government, in order to rid the Communist Party of Malaya from the political and civic landscape in Singapore.

A dragnet operation known as the 1963 Operation Coldstore was the final nail in the coffin for the so-called “Communist threat” in Singapore. Under Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership, Operation Coldstore arrested and detained 113 suspected communist sympathizers without trial. Among those arrested were several key members of pro-labor and/or anti-colonial organizations, such as the Barisan Sosialis (or the Socialist Front; this was the PAP’s biggest political opponent at the time), the Singapore Association of Trade Unions and the Singapore General Employees’ Union. The list included Lim Chin Siong, Sandrasegaran Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, James Puthucheary, Dominic Puthucheary, Poh Soo Kai, Lim Hock Siew, Tan Teck Wah, Linda Chen Mong Hock and Said Zahari. In 1966, the Singapore Police Special Branch was renamed and transformed into the Internal Security Department (ISD), parked under the Ministry of Interior and Defence (MID) and later, in 1970, moved to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Subsequently, the infamous 1987 Operation Spectrum (also known as the Marxist Conspiracy) was also commanded by the ISD. We have written briefly about Operation Spectrum and how it irresponsibly accorded the Christian far-right with disproportionate amounts of influence and power in the ensuing decades in a previous post, ‘The State v. Subhas Nair: Rap, Right, Race and Reckoning’.

In other words, the history of the ISD is one tied to colonial and post-colonial authority, and its resources have historically been used to destroy political threats and/or opponents. While there is information available online about the CPIB’s process, including who it reports to, there is little to no credible information available online about the ISD’s process. Who, then, is the ISD accountable to, and how is the ISD held to account when it makes misjudgments or mistakes in the name of so-called national security in Singapore? This begs the question: Might the ISD ironically be the biggest security threat to Singapore itself?

Operation Anne Boleyn: Kill Switch for Singapore’s President Tharman Shanmugaratnam

On 18 November 2023, Joyce Ng submitted an official letter to Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to whistle-blow about the Internal Security Department’s (ISD) Operation Anne Boleyn. The 8-page letter is accessible via her Twitter post and IPFS link.

The letter was addressed specifically to the President of the Republic of Singapore, His Excellency Tharman Shanmugaratnam and the CPIB Director Denis Tang Siew Taeng. It begins:

I humbly write to your good office after having received deeply concerning information regarding an Internal Security Department (ISD) operation codenamed “Operation Anne Boleyn”, which to my understanding, is an operation to kill His Excellency Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, should he give concurrence to investigate certain matters which have been brought to the attention of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which I traverse herein. I affirm that the matters and facts stated in this letter which are within my personal knowledge are true, and the facts set out in this letter which are not within my personal knowledge are true to the furthest of my knowledge and belief. I understand that it is an offence for a person to give any public servant any information he knows or believes to be false.

We understand that Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is leaving the ISD to deal with any whistle-blowing matters related to Hydra-22, whether brought to attention by members of Hydra-22 (such as Carissa Cheow) or external parties (such as those in the public or civil service). We understand that he is trying to avoid being directly involved and implicated in dealing with the matters himself, as he simply wants to retire on a good note. According to a screenshot provided by Joyce:

The CPIB Director [Denis Tang Siew Taeng] has been educated on his place in the food chain. And Lee Hsien Loong is not going to give permission to the CPIB to investigate any of Hydra-22’s complaints. But if Tharman Shanmugaratnam chooses to give that concurrence to the CPIB to investigate it, then he gets retired and is replaced by Lucien Wong Yuen Kai as Singapore’s next President.

In other words, the execution of this plan is not definite, but is contingent upon whether or not Singapore’s President Tharman Shanmugaratnam decides to concur with the CPIB in allowing Hydra-22-related corruption claims to be thoroughly investigated. Operation Anne Boleyn is conditional: It will be activated as a kill switch only if President Tharman Shanmugaratnam decides to allow the CPIB to conduct thorough investigations into Hydra-22-related complaints or relevant whistle-blowing attempts.

In Singapore, the President is functionally positioned as a check and balance to the Prime Minister for anti-corruption matters. Given Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s refusal to approve the CPIB’s requests to investigate into Hydra-22-related matters, it then stands that President Tharman Shanmugaratnam poses a threat to any investigation into operations by the Christian far-right and the ISD itself (of which approximately 40% is itself Christian far-right, as we have previously reported).

This begs several questions: Why the need for Operation Anne Boleyn? Why go to the extent of putting in place a kill switch to be used to assassinated President Tharman Shanmugaratnam just to cover-up the misdeeds of the Christian far-right and Mercury Jamie Alice? Why is the ISD needing to clean and/or cover this up?

This returns us to our earlier stated concerns: Who, then, is the ISD accountable to, and how is the ISD held to account when it makes misjudgments or mistakes in the name of so-called national security in Singapore? Might the ISD ironically be the biggest security threat to Singapore itself?

House of Cards, Leadership Reshuffle: Under Operation Anne Boleyn, Lucien Wong Yuen Kai as President and Davinder Singh Sachdev s/o Amar Singh as Attorney General

According to Joyce’s letter, if the need arises such that Operation Anne Boleyn is activated, Attorney General Lucien Wong Yuen Kai would then be nominated as President. He would be pitted in a “Straight fight against Peter Ng Kok Song”, who would “be encouraged by plants within [Peter Ng Kok Song’s] own support base to apply to contest in that election” if Operation Anne Boleyn is activated. We understand that “Ms Indranee Thurai Rajah has advised ISD that [directly parachuting Lucien Wong Yuen Kai into the position of President] would not be the course that the Elections Department would be told to take if [Operation Anne Boleyn] gets triggered”. Hosting a proper by-election would provide the illusion of democratic legitimacy, which has been calculated to be necessary theater in order to avoid potential accusations of authoritarianism, despotism or corruption – all of which might be “more expensive” in terms of political and/or economic capital, to the Singapore stage, international governments and audiences, and foreign investors. We note that in the results of the 2023 Presidential Election, Peter Ng Kok Song received 15.72% of the votes as a candidate; he is unlikely to pose an electoral threat against Lucien Wong Yuen Kai should there be a “Straight fight” between the two. Correspondingly, upon Lucien Wong’s successful appointment as President in the event that Operation Anne Boleyn is activated, Davinder Singh Sachdev s/o Amar Singh would then be appointed Attorney General to fill the vacancy.

We reiterate that these political decisions are parked under Operation Anne Boleyn, which is fundamentally a plan by the Internal Security Department (ISD), rather than any other department or agency within the Singapore government, its various ministries and statutory boards. Does this absurd plan offer a politically, economically and socially astute or wise roadmap – for the People’s Action Party (PAP), for Singapore, for the region, or for the world? The answer, glaringly: No.

Again, for the third time, we ask: Who, then, is the ISD accountable to, and how is the ISD held to account when it makes misjudgments or mistakes in the name of so-called national security in Singapore? This begs the question: Might the ISD ironically be the biggest security threat to Singapore itself?

Lucien Wong Yuen Kai: Disreputable Misleadership

For clarity, Attorney General Lucien Wong Yuen Kai is involved in Operation High Tide, and is politically (if not religiously) aligned with Christian far-right segments of Singapore’s population – including but not limited to being in correspondence and/or co-operation with the likes of CanaVox’s Carol Loi Pui Wan and key leadership in the charismatic megachurch Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC), such as Nina Khong. Much like how Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists entered into a temporary coalition and turned LGBT rights into a wedge issue for their respective political agendas in 2014’s anti-Pink Dot and anti-LGBT WearWhite campaign, Attorney General Lucien Wong Yuen Kai seems to have previously entered into a similarly provisional alliance of convenience and shared interest with the Muslim far-right via Operation Alqamashia. This was primarily through Professor Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, notorious for having likened “lesbianism” to “cancers”.

However, setting the LGBT matter aside, Attorney General Lucien Wong Yuen Kai has also previously come under heat – particularly with regards to his controversial appointment as the Attorney General in Singapore, which was announced on 25 November 2016. Attorney General Lucien Wong Yuen Kai commenced his first appointment on 14 January 2017, and has since been re-appointed for two further 3-year terms, from 2020 to 2023 and from 2023 to 2026 respectively. This means that he is presently serving his third 3-year term.

According to an article by The Straits Times’ Rachel Au-Yong: “The [first and original] appointment of Mr Wong [to the position of Attorney General, which commenced in 2017] had been cited by PM Lee’s younger brother Lee Hsien Yang as an example of abuse of power in relation to the dispute over 38, Oxley Road.”

According to another article by TODAY Online’s Kelly Ng, published in 2017:

There is “no problem of conflict at all” in Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment as the Attorney-General (AG) even though he was Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s personal lawyer who had advised him on issues related to 38 Oxley Road, said Mr Lee in Parliament on Tuesday (July 4).

[...] Mr Lee was responding to questions raised by Workers’ Party Members of Parliament on the propriety of Mr Wong’s appointment, as well as that of Mr Hri Kumar Nair, a former People’s Action Party Member of Parliament, as Deputy AG.”

[...] He added that when Mr Wong’s name came up as a candidate to succeed Mr VK Rajah as AG, he had “endorsed (Mr Wong) with confidence”.

“I was even more confident because I had direct personal experience working with (Mr Wong) on (the case of 38 Oxley Road). I had also consulted him informally on government matters before, when we were working on the Points of Agreement dispute with Malaysia.”

He added: “I told the Cabinet Lucien was my lawyer ... that the Opposition may make an issue of it, but I do not consider this an impediment.”

According to an article by The Straits Times’ Charissa Yong, published in 2017: “Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim clashed in Parliament on Tuesday (Jan 10) over whether the incoming Attorney-General is older than the Constitution allows for. [...] Ms Lim, who is an MP for Aljunied GRC and a lawyer, asked if Mr Wong’s appointment was in line with Article 35(4) of the Constitution, which governs the appointing of an Attorney-General. It states that the Attorney-General, barring certain circumstances, shall otherwise hold office until he turns 60 years old. [...] Ms Lim [asserted] that the law “does not seem to contemplate the appointment of a new Attorney-General who is more than 60 years old to assume the post”.”

According to an article published on The Online Citizen in 2017, headlined ‘SDP urges President Tony Tan to revoke Lucien Wong’s appointment as Attorney General’: “Singapore Democratic Party has written to President Tony Tan, urging him to revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s position as the Attorney General as the AG has refused to look into Dr Lee Wei Ling’s and Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations that PM Lee Hsien Loong had abused his powers and made false statements in Parliament.”

The official statement by opposition party Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is headlined ‘AGC refuses to investigate PM Lee; SDP writes to President to revoke Lucien Wong’s appointment as AG’. Published on 25 July 2017, the statement reads, in full:

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has refused to look into Dr Lee Wei Ling’s and Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations that PM Lee Hsien Loong had abused his powers and made false statements in Parliament.

In its reply to the SDP on 21 July 2017, the AGC said that it “does not undertake investigations into the matters alleged in the letter. The persons who are the subjects of any criminal offence alleged to have been committed may lodge a police report.”

This is a curious, if not altogether hypocritical, stance. The AGC recently indicated that it would “look into” Mr Li Shengwu’s private Facebook posting which criticised the judicial system even though there was no mention that anyone had made a police report against Mr Li.

Surely, if the AGC could “look into” private Facebook messages, it can look into the serious accusations of the abuse of power by the Prime Minister.

Also, in 1997, then AG Chan Sek Keong had investigated the matter of Mr Goh Chok Tong and other ministers entering polling stations on voting day even though they were clearly not authorised to do so.

As in the 1997 incident, the “persons who are the subjects” of the alleged offence are the people of Singapore. If AG Chan – despite his inane answer that Mr Goh and company had not committed an offence as they were inside the polling station and not waiting outside it – could investigate the incident, surely AG Lucien Wong can investigate the present matter. 

The added significance in this case, of course, is that AG Wong was the PM’s personal lawyer prior to his appointment. This crucial fact was not disclosed to the public at the time the appointment was made in 2016.

Given the situation, the SDP has written to President Tony Tan to revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment. Under Section 22(1) of the Constitution, the President is empowered to do so.

Mr Lucien Wong was sworn in as AG on 16 January 2017. However, the fact that Mr Wong was the PM’s personal lawyer was revealed to the public only in June 2017. The President may not have been aware of this fact and its full implications, in particular.

The association of Mr Wong with PM Lee prior to his becoming the AG has created an acute conflict of interest which cannot be ignored. It is important that President Tan does the right thing in the interest of the people of Singapore and revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment as AG.

Any further delay or refusal to act will cause even greater erosion of confidence in our public institutions. 

Moreover, according to an article published on The Online Citizen in 2020, headlined ‘Newspaper cutting of Singapore Attorney General’s past making its round within legal fraternity’:

A viral message with a newspaper cutting from 1986 that has the Singapore Attorney General (AG) as its key figure, is making its round within the legal fraternity.

The article which on the front page of Straits Times’ newspaper on 25 Oct 1986 — entitled, “Report made against lawyer for alleged removal of legal files” — writes that a woman was caught by her colleagues in a nearby parking lot on around 10pm on Wednesday (22 Oct 1986).

The law firm was identified as being located in Battery Road.

The report went on to say that the Superintendent at the time, Lim Soo Gee had confirmed that the incident happened. The woman had apparently been found with the files in the car park in the company of another lawyer. The male lawyer had apparently resigned from his previous firm after a heated exchange with a partner.

ST sources said that the files contained legal precedents, a valuable tool for lawyers in arguing their cases.

The report went on to say that both lawyers, who were in their 30s and specialists of corporate law, had been planning to join another firm just a few months down the line.

The male lawyer was described as being a top law student during his time at the National University of Singapore.

Checks with seasoned lawyers, revealed that the law firm mentioned in this news report, is Shook Lin & Bok.

As for the female lawyer, TOC understands that she is Ms Christina Ong who was then employed with the law firm and for the male lawyer, Mr Lucien Wong who was with Drew & Naiper and currently the Attorney General and former personal lawyer for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Mr Wong was the top graduate of his cohort in 1978 which fits the description of the male lawyer in the ST report.

The news report also mentioned sources saying that the woman ‘broke down’ after she was discovered and that more files were found in the trunk of the man’s car.

[...] While the ST report noted that the police superintendent said investigations were ongoing, however as TOC understands, the case was stood down after AGC decided not to pursue the matter. A complaint was also made to the Law Society but it was never resolved publicly.

Ms Ong and Mr Wong both went on to join Alen & Glenhill in 1987 as partners of the law firm.

Controversy arose after Mr Wong was sworn in as AG on 16 January 2017. While Mr Wong’s predecessor V K Rajah SC — who was appointed Attorney-General on 25 Jun 2014 — ended his service as the Attorney-General on 14 Jan 2017 upon reaching the retirement age of 60 years, Mr Wong was 63 years old at the time of his appointment for the first term of his tenure. Mr Wong was renewed as AG at the age of 67 years old in 2020, and he will be 70 at the end of his second term as the Attorney-General.

Other than his age, another controversy that arose for Mr Wong’s appointment as AG was when it was revealed that he was the Prime Minister’s personal lawyer handling the issue of the 38 Oxley Road property.

It must be noted that the act of wrongfully removing legal documents from a firm is a criminal offence and it would also be grounds for disbarment as a lawyer for Mr Wong, making it impossible for him to be where he is today as AG, beyond the age of the retirement.

This 1986 matter was noticed by Kenneth Andrew Jeyaretnam as well. In a post headlined ‘Lucien Wong’s Controversial Past Points to Need for Reform of the AG’s Office’ and published on his blog in 2020, Kenneth opines:

There were revelations last week about Lucien Wong’s past misdemeanours. In 1986 a police report was made against both him and a female lawyer (Christina Ong, now Senior Partner at Allen and Gledhill) for alleged wrongful removal of files (a euphemism for theft?) from their employers’ offices after they were caught with the files in the [boot of the female lawyer’s car]. There was also a complaint made around the same time to the Law Society but it was apparently dismissed as “unmeritorious”. This raises questions as to why he was not prosecuted when for instance the AG pursued other “unmeritorious” cases such as the one against JBJ who was found guilty of a non-existent offence and sentenced to jail, deprived of his seat in Parliament and then struck off by the Law Society. He was only able to appeal to the Privy Council in the UK over his disbarment but they did not mince their words, recording their “deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments”, JBJ had suffered “a grievous injustice”.  Despite the Privy Council asking the Government to take the necessary steps to exonerate JBJ, the Government, headed by LKY, refused to do so.

[...] The selection of Lucien Wong as AG demonstrates how little has changed since then. With his questionable past and his conflict of interest as the PM’s former personal lawyer he is unsuitable to hold the role. In his case the fact that he is over 60 (the statutory retirement age for the AG under the Constitution) makes him even more susceptible to pressure from the PM as his appointment is for a fixed term which the PM can extend at his discretion (with the rubber stamp of the President). In a similar way the Government has the power to allow High Court Judges, including the Chief Justice, to serve beyond the statutory retirement age raising questions about judicial independence.

According to an article first published on The Online Citizen (and subsequently removed under a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) declaration, requested by Singapore’s Minister of Communication and Information Josephine Teo Li Min), and republished on Gutzy Asia in November 2023, headlined ‘Controversy unleashed: Reappointment of Singapore’s oldest Attorney General’:

The reappointment of Lucien Wong to a third term as Attorney General (AG) in January this year has raised serious questions regarding political cronyism, potential conflicts of interest, and age-related concerns about his appointment.

Upon the conclusion of his term in 2026, Wong will be 72, an age significantly beyond the traditionally recommended retirement age of 60 for this role.

Intriguingly, Wong, despite his prolific career for over 40 years, has never argued a case in court, raising questions about the decision to extend his tenure rather than tapping into the vast talent pool within the legal fraternity. This prompts us to scrutinize the transparency of the appointment process and potential conflicts of interest more closely.

[...] However, Wong’s former role as a personal lawyer to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in the handling of the 38 Oxley Road property has understandably raised some concerns. This property dispute has been a contentious chapter in Singapore’s political narrative.

Opposition parties were swift to question the impartiality of Wong’s position, given his previous association with the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, his potential role in advising the government and cabinet on matters pertaining to the Lee family’s property or ongoing police investigations involving PM Lee’s younger brother and his spouse presents a troubling overlap, considering his prior representation of PM Lee in the dispute with his siblings.

Wong’s appointment brings a deeper issue into focus – the intertwining of personal, professional, and political relationships within Singapore’s highest legal office. His longstanding professional association with the Home Affairs and Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, within Allen & Gledhill, adds a further layer of complexity.

[...] The appointment of Lucien Wong as AG illuminates the delicate balance between legal provisions, institutional integrity, and public sentiment. It gives rise to valid concerns regarding potential cronyism, conflict of interest, and age-related considerations.

Ensuring public trust is crucial, necessitating that such appointments be transparent, impartial, and in line with the spirit of constitutional provisions. As Singapore continues to evolve as a democratic nation, maintaining the sanctity and independence of public institutions must be paramount.

With Wong’s term renewal due in the future, these are considerations that the incoming President may well need to mull over.

Mercury Jamie Alice’s ISD Handler Unmasked: Hello Shawn

According to Joyce’s letter: “I understand that Mercury had received the following information from an individual known by the name “Shawn” whom Mercury has referred to as Mercury’s “ISD handler” on multiple occasions and whom Mercury has revealed uses the Telegram handle @Shawn156 linked to the mobile number +65-8774-5302.”

We understand that ISD agents use the guise of Home Affairs Senior Executives, parked under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), as their title. We understand that Shawn, as an intelligence agent, also operates under this undercover designation. However, Shawn has been in contact with Mercury not under this undercover designation, but directly as an ISD agent, since March 2021.

Mercury: Actually a Victim of ISD’s Malice

We understand that in March 2021, the ISD claimed to have had received an anonymous tip-off that Mercury’s younger sister Lim Yee Xuan Jerena – motivated by transphobic extremism – was planning a terror attack on the T Project shelter in Singapore. This, of course, was not actually the case. Jerena Lim had not committed such an offense. Instead, we understand that the ISD was attempting to accuse and frame Mercury herself for said terror attack, as the stick in the classic “carrot and stick” approach to coerce, force and ultimately corner Mercury into working with the ISD. In other words, Mercury Jamie Alice is, in fact, herself a victim of the ISD.

Have the events since 18 June 2022’s Brown Dot at Pink Dot 2022 been Mercury’s own doing or has she been exploited as a pawn by the ISD in a bigger game?

For the fourth time, we ask: Who, then, is the ISD accountable to, and how is the ISD held to account when it makes misjudgments or mistakes in the name of so-called national security in Singapore? This begs the question: Might the ISD ironically be the biggest security threat to Singapore itself?

The CPIB: Yet Another Victim of ISD’s Malice

We previously reported that Lune Loh filed a corruption complaint to the CPIB, against police officer Roger Seah Ming Hui. We understand that there has since been a tug-of-war between the ISD and the CPIB, with the ISD trying to persuade and strong-arm the CPIB into complying with them. Specifically, the ISD has been trying to delay the CPIB’s investigations into the Roger Seah case until April 2024, on the basis of supposed “national security” concerns. By this, the ISD means that they would like for Vickreman Harvey Chettiar’s trial to be completed first, so that they can have her prosecuted and discredited.

We have previously outlined the decade-old personal and political grievances that the ISD has against Harvey due her refusal to comply with Operation Providence. We have also previously reported on how whistle-blower Carissa Cheow has gone into “extensive detail about how each of Harvey’s current four criminal charges are the direct or indirect results of fix-ups by various actors, such as Liberty League, Mercury Jamie Alice and Legal Clinic LLC”. This can be read in Carissa’s 100-page letter to the President of the Republic of Singapore Tharman Shanmugaratnam and to the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s Crime Division’s Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng, dated 13 October 2023. The letter is accessible via her Facebook post / Proton file sharing link / IPFS link. The relevant sections are paragraphs 201 – 257 (or pages 76 – 98) of Carissa’s letter.

We understand that the CPIB disputed the ISD’s attempt to obstruct their investigations into the Roger Seah case, as they have a responsibility to their job and to the citizenry. However, we also understand that, in turn, the ISD requested for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to speak directly to the CPIB on their behalf, since the CPIB reports directly to the Prime Minister. Mistakenly thinking that listening to the ISD is indeed in his interest and willingly ignorant of the ISD’s repeated misdeeds, fix-ups and cover-ups over the years, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was amenable to the ISD’s request. Thus, we understand that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (reciting the flimsy ISD excuse of “national security”) has indeed refused to give his consent to the Director of the CPIB to investigate the Roger Seah case – prompting the likelihood of the Director indeed approaching President Tharman Shanmugaratnam to ask for permission to bypass the Prime Minister’s objection and carry out the investigation nonetheless. This means that Operation Anne Boleyn will be activated, unless the relevant parties in the Singapore government whom we know to be monitoring our site reads this present article, raises it to top leadership, and all come to their senses about what implications a kill switch such as Operation Anne Boleyn might have for them and everyone else.

Again, for the fifth and final time, we ask: Who, then, is the ISD accountable to, and how is the ISD held to account when it makes misjudgments or mistakes in the name of so-called national security in Singapore? This begs the question: Might the ISD ironically be the biggest security threat to Singapore itself?