THE FORGOTTEN DETAINEES OF 1956 AND 1957 UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE

Mr David Marshall: Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think I need apologise to this House for keeping it for another few minutes, since the people of whom I have to speak have been kept waiting for several years. I want to speak to you tonight of 14 people, whom I have never met, whose names I do not know and whom I do not know personally in any way whatsoever, who languish in prison and have languished in prison for five to six years without trial by executive order renewed from time to time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the year 1955, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance was passed against P.A.P. opposition in this Assembly, and vicious and malicious P.A.P. propaganda out side this Assembly was led by the present Prime Minister and his henchmen, Mr Lim Ching Siong and Mr Devan Nair. At that time, the present Minister for Health condemned what he called the undemocratic Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in no uncertain terms. During 1955, despite considerable teething troubles in Singapore, the provisions of this Ordinance were so sparingly and so fairly used - all the detainees were released as soon as conditions had settled - that no criticism was levelled against its use in that period.

Then came 1956 and 1957 when there was unrest, and the provisions of the Ordinance were extensively used and a large number of persons were detained. It is not the purpose of this motion to seek to reopen either the issue of the need for the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance today or the propriety or otherwise of the detentions of 1956 and 1957. The purpose of this motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to draw the attention of hon. Members of this Assembly to the fact that human beings who have not been found guilty by any Court are imprisoned for five and six years during a period when there is no question of an emergency. Even serious offences under our Penal Code are very rarely met with such extensive terms of actual imprisonment, for it is recognised that imprisonment has a deleterious effect upon a human being, and unless a man is beyond the hope of redemption the Courts will not impose sentences which will destroy his personality completely. How do we justify the continued detention of these forgotten men of 1956 and 1957?

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting to note that on the night of 20th/2lst July last year - that unhappy all-night sitting which started a curious P.A.P. circus - the Deputy Prime Minister said, and I quote from col. 1682:

'There were altogether 61 persons detained on 2nd June, 1959. From the day the P.A.P, assumed office on 3rd June, 1959, to date. 35 persons have been released. Of those who were detained by the previous Government in the two purges of 1956 and 1957, there are now only 18 persons still under detention.'.

Those are the persons of whom I am speaking, Mr Deputy Speaker.

`It is vital that the continued detention of these 18 detainees should not be allowed to obscure the main issue in the minds of the people, and that is the political future of Singapore - whether we are to attain independence through merger with the Federation in 1963 either with or without the Borneo territories, or whether, as has been suggested by Mr Lim Ching Siong's group, the next step should not be merger hut an internally self-governing Singapore without the Internal Security Council.'.

He added:

`I would like to lay on the Table the Singapore Government's Paper to the Internal Security Council dated 12th August, 1959, for the information of the House.' At a later stage, Mr Deputy Speaker, he said [col.1683]:

`... in the light of recent developments which have been outlined by the Prime Minister to the House, to remove all doubts and any vestige of suspicion about the sincerity of the P.A.P. Government in wanting to release these detainees, we have no alternative but feel compelled that the whole truth should be made known to the people.'.

"... the sincerity of the P.A.P. Government in wanting to release these detainees..."! This was nine months ago. Let me continue. This is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in ending up:

`The importance of the question of merger so outweighs all other considerations that we are anxious that this side issue of continued detention of the detainees should be immediately resolved [note the words, Mr Deputy Speaker, "immediately resolved"] and not be allowed to be used as an argument against merger. Notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council,'-

"Notwithstanding the stand" - brave words, Mr Deputy Speaker:

`Notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council, the Singapore Government will issue orders for the release of the detainees in hatches from time to time in accordance with the original proposal of the Singapore Government to the Internal- Security Council. In doing so, I would like to clarify that it is not the desire of the Singapore Government to precipitate any conflict or crisis with the Federation Government with whom it has always been our policy to maintain amicable and brotherly relationship in the interest of the people of both territories.'.

Now, Sir, that is an unequivocal assurance that having considered fully the interest of the Federation and having considered fully the opposition of the British Government, the P.A.P. Government was going to proceed with its firm intention to release the detainees whom it had wanted to release from 12th August, 1959. This was said two years after 1959. We are today in 1962 - nine months after those words were said.

Mr Deputy Speaker, despite this formal assurance of the Deputy Prime Minister, I have to inform you that on 2nd April, 1962, I received an intimation from the Ministry of Home Affairs that only four of these 18 persons detained during the 1956/1957 purges were released between 20th July and 2nd April. I am not guaranteeing the accuracy of the figure given by the Ministry, but I will be happy to table the letter itself, Sir. I shall table it at the end of my speech.

You will remember that I sought this information by a Written Question. Maybe the Minister misunderstood its purport, but let us give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did. In any event, he was not ready and so I had to write him a fairly lengthy letter spelling out what I required. And after two weeks, I did get a reply - unequivocal for a change - stating categorically that four persons of these 18 whom they had promised to release nine months ago have now been released.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot see how persons who have spent more than five to six years in gaol can really continue to be effective agents of subversive organisations if, in fact, they belong to such organisations. After being five to six years out of circulation, it is not unreasonable to assume, unless they are particularly prominent personalities, that their release cannot materially affect the security position.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am heartened in this view - not that I need any support from the P.A.P. but just in case they wish to indulge in arguments which belie their own documents - let me remind them, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the paper which they tabled in this House on the night of 20th July, 1961, being their ISC.59 of 12th August, 1959, Secret, and this is what it says:

`Once he is released [that is, Mr Lim Ching Siong is released], it makes very little difference from the point of view of subversion whether the remaining 40-odd detainees are released or not, because they cannot materially affect the security position.'.

This was written in 1959 - almost three years ago - in respect of these persons who had then been two to three years in gaol and who are still today in gaol. Why are they still detained? Is it because since 20th July the P.A.P. has suddenly awakened to the fact that these former P.A.P. members would not return to the P.A.P. fold? Why the change of position from three years ago? Why this additional broken promise?

Sir, one of the bitter lessons I have learned and relearned in the nine months I have been here is that an appeal to the Government on the grounds of reason and on the grounds of humanity will more often than not be met with raucous laughter more appropriate to a different institution. The only logic to which the P.A.P. Government is open is the logic of power. But I would ask the P.A.P. and those who sleep behind the Front Bench: what of these comrades of theirs who five to six years ago were detained and whose release they promised to obtain when they took office? How do you justify, Mr Deputy Speaker, these 14 human beings in prison for five to six years by executive order at a time of peace in the face of Government's own promise to release them and the Government's official recognition that their release - in the words of the letter of 12th August, 1959 - "cannot materially affect the security position"? How do you justify their continued detention?

00.15 a.m. (18th April, 1962)

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I go on to show for whom the Member for Anson is acting as proxy, let me dispose of his allegation that the Government has broken its promise made on its behalf by the Deputy Prime Minister on 20th July, 1961. It is necessary to get our facts straight.

As those who have followed recent correspondence between the Member for Anson and the Minister for Health and Law in the Chinese Press will appreciate, the Member for Anson is strong on fiction and weak on facts. What was the promise made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 20th July in this Assembly? Let me quote the relevant portions in Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 23, col. 1683:

`Notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council, the Singapore Government will issue orders for the release of the detainees in batches from time to time in accordance with the original proposal of the Singapore Government to the Internal Security Council.'. There was no pledge of unconditional release within a specified time. We could not have done so for obvious reasons. This was made clear in the sentence that immediately followed the quotation I have just made. This reads as follows:

`In doing so, I would like to clarify that it is not the desire of the Singapore Government to precipitate any conflict or crisis with the Federation Government with whom it has always been our policy to maintain amicable and brotherly relationship in the interest of the people of both territories.'.

In other words, since the Federation is a member of the Internal Security Council, it is necessary to convince the Federation representative that the release of a detainee does not constitute a security risk. In this connection, may I quote an authority whom the Member for Anson can disregard only at his own peril? The authority is none other than the Member for Upper Serangoon. He made this pronouncement on 21st September, 1960, when the Member for Hong Lim brought a motion asking for the unconditional release of detainees. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 9, col. 707. This is what the Member for Upper Serangoon said:

`But, if among those who are now detained there are some who do not believe in peaceful constitutional struggle and who harbour the design of replacing the democratic parliamentary system with a Communist regime, then the P.A.P. has no obligation to fight for their release and their freedom.'.

Needless to say, the Member for Upper Serangoon voted against the unconditional release of political detainees. The strictures that the Member for Nee Soon made on the Member for Hong Lim for bringing the detainee issue were so spirited that the Speaker had to call upon him to withdraw some telling nouns and adjectives directed against the Member for Hong Lim. But one sentence which was not ruled out of order may be of some interest to the Member for Anson. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 9, col. 716:

`Running through this motion, we are able to read in and between the lines the false premises messed-up with paranoic tendencies of a persecution complex.'.

And in col. 717, the Member for Nee Soon also had this to say:

`I [that is the Member for Nee Soon] might add, Sir, that the original motion was worded to make it appear that the Singapore Government had never fought for the release of the detainees. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even before the P.A.P. formed Government the wheels were set in motion for the release of political detainees by the collective leadership of the Party.'.

He went on to say:

`Since then we have unrelentingly fought for the release of the remaining political detainees, and will continue to fight for their release.'.

And in col. 718, he continued:

`If he [that is, the Member for Hong Lim] agrees that the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya is in the best interest of this country, then surely he must agree with us, Mr Speaker, Sir, that any power that seeks to overthrow this democratic system by subversion and by violence must be squarely met and boldly dealt with.'.

The Member for Havelock was no less hard on the Member for Hong Lim for bringing this motion. He thought that the Member for Hong Lim brought the motion to revive his fading political prestige. In the end, all the Barisan Sosialis Members approved the amended motion which reads as follows:

`That this Assembly urges the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.'.

In the context of the debate, what this meant was clear. These detainees can help the Government to secure their release by categorically and decisively repudiating Communism and allegiance to Communist objectives.

As the Member for Upper Serangoon observed, the P.A.P. has no obligation to fight for the release of Communists or their willing henchmen. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement of July 1961 was not a promise of unconditional release of the 17 persons still detained, 14 of whom were detained during the 1956/57 purges.

An hon. Member: Eighteen.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No. We have 17 left. Since the Deputy Prime Minister made his speech in the Assembly in July 1961, 9 further detainees have been released, and out of these nine, 4 were from the 1956 and 1957 purges. So there arc 17 left.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Minister will give way. The Minister does not give way.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Out of these 17, 14 were detained during the 1956 and 1957 purges. The P.A.P. made a pledge of unconditional release only in regard to the 8 P.A.P. members who were intimately connected with the leadership of the Party. These included Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull among others. We secured their release as promised just before we assumed office on 5th June, 1959. As regards the others who were members of the Party, we agreed to press for their release to the best of our ability and having regard to the tripartite nature of the Internal Security Council. Of the 61 persons under detention when the P.A.P. assumed office, only 17 are still under detention. The Government would like to secure their release, as it has secured the release of the others. To do this, we must convince the Federation Government that these persons are not security risks, and the best way to do this is - as was stated in the resolutions of September 1960 and approved by those who now call themselves the Barisan Sosialis - for the detainees to categorically and sincerely repudiate Communism. I do not know whether the Member for Anson, unlike the Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Upper Serangoon, is suggesting that we should press for the release of detainees who are not prepared to disavow Communist ambitions as he has admitted in this Assembly that his Party has been captured by the Communists.

Mr David Marshall: That is not true.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: But if he himself has not been captured by the Communists who run his Party, then he will do better to exhort the detainees to categorically repudiate Communism and thus make it easier to secure their release. To ask for the release of those who are not prepared to repudiate Communism would be to act as proxy for Communist designs at a time when the Communists are not only looking for stooges but also for much needed cadres for the coming battle.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, time is very short and I will not be long about this. These people have been detained for seven years, from 1955 to 1962, and all on what? It was on the advice of informers, agents provocateurs and spies who tail people and make up stories. These detainees are spending the best years of their lives in detention. What crimes have they committed? Robbery? Kidnapping? Murder? Even people who have committed such crimes, Sir, have only limited periods of detention and they know when they can expect to be out. What future have the detainees now? Their future now depends on whether or not they get into the good books of the P.A.P. If the P.A.P. leaders in their whims and fancies should want to release them, they come out, otherwise they will continue to be detained.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Repudiate Communism.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All at the whims and fancies of the P.A.P. leaders! The Prime Minister himself said long ago that he would consider all detainees -

Mr Rajaratnam: On their merits.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Not on their merits but that if at any time certain of the detainees were to be released, he would consider all detainees as belonging to the same class - all put together. No separation has been -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

The Question having been proposed at Twelve o'clock midnight on 17th April, 1962, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock a.m. (18th April, 1962)