BLACK OPERATIONS AGAINST SINGAPORE (Particulars)

Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the light of recent revelations about Black Operations mounted against the Government from a number of countries, whether he will elaborate on the implications with regard to international relations governing our foreign policies; and if he will also indicate how these will affect the relations of Singapore with the countries concerned.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the last part of the question, may I say that relations between Singapore and the countries from which black operations were directed have not suffered to any appreciable degree. This is because we are satisfied that the governments concerned were not involved in these unfriendly activities.

I refer in particular to the cases of Mr Leong Mun Kwai and Mr Tan Wah Piow, both of whom have been used for black operations not by governments but by hostile groups and individuals in friendly countries. If hon. Members would read Mr Leong's disclosures very carefully, it is clear that he had been directed by officials and politicians who appear to have acted without the knowledge or approval of responsible people in authority.

The case of Mr Tan Wah Piow is slightly different. Unlike Mr Leong, he was more successful in doing a bunk and finding sanctuary in a friendly country. Hence we were not able to interrogate him and confront him with such evidence as we have. But, in my view, he is of the same breed as Mr Leong. Though Mr Tan Wah Piow transgressed British laws by entering the country with an ineptly forged passport, he was lucky enough to have had some rather influential friends in that country. Instead of being hauled up on criminal charges, he has been rewarded with a place in Bradford University where he is dedicating himself, I understand, to the study of the intricacies of British law.

Despite this, we are satisfied that the responsible leaders of government in the United Kingdom could not have been parties to the rewarding of a forger, a black agent, an army deserter and an architect student who failed to make the grade in our University.

In addition to low level mercenaries like Mr Leong and Mr Tan Wah Piow, there are more deadly ideological operators and pseudo revolutionaries. They work, with the active or passive support of foreign governments, to further one of the many varieties of communism. Singapore is and will continue to be a target for this kind of subversive operations. Misguided liberals, disgruntled politicians and alienated intellectuals are additional grist to the subversive mill. The latter generally tend to dismiss all references to communist subversion and periodic arrest and detention of subversives as bogies raised by a government intolerant of dissent. This is precisely the frame of mind the dedicated communists encourage and foster among the less dedicated who take up revolution as part-time recreation or as a form of psychotherapy.

Hence the readiness with which this kind of revolutionary breaks down and spills the beans when, with the first arrest, he discovers that revolution is a deadly business. The fact that these are misguided weaklings does not make them any less dangerous to Singapore. By helping to confuse the people about the ultimate objectives of the dedicated communists they, whatever their intentions, objectively further the communist cause. Once the communists win, these liberals will be among the first casualties. We only get these weaklings to own up publicly to their stupidities but the Communists, once they are in power as had happened in countries in our region, treat them as dangerous vermin to be exterminated.

With reference to the earlier part of the question, in the conduct of our international relations the Government and the people must never lose sight of the fact that an independent Singapore will always be a target for subversion. More so in a period of great and small power rivalries in our region - rivalries not only between communist and non-communist nations but also between communist nations. So in this battle, Singapore will always be a target for influence by these countries and therefore an object for subversion. Singapore may be small but in the power game control over Singapore is. for a rival power or nation, the key to the control of Southeast Asia.

That is how the British saw Singapore in the hey-day of British imperialism and that is how the Japanese saw it during their brief hour of glory in Southeast Asia. Singapore in Singaporean hands may not be a threat. But Singapore in the hands of a great power or some other power is a key to the control and dominance of Southeast Asia.

So the day Singaporeans or their government are persuaded that subversion, whether from the right or from the left is a bogey, is a figment of the imagination of a desperate government, that day will mark the beginning of the end of an independent Singapore. Once the people develop cynicism towards the periodic arrest and detention of communists, that is the day the communists will have succeeded in their purpose of getting our people to believe that there is no such thing as subversion.

In any case there is no need for the PAP Government with its decisive electoral strength to play up the communist bogey to win elections or maintain popular support. We have no need to do that.

The reason therefore why we are arresting people like Mr Leong and Mr Raman and making public their admissions is not that we need these confessions to bolster our standing with the people but really to educate our people, especially the so-called liberals, about political realities which must be taken into consideration in the formulation of our foreign policy.

That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, we waited till after the elections before taking action against them. We knew and suspected that something of the kind of either black operations or subversion was going on. Had we done so before the elections, such action would have been seen as the desperate act of a Government unsure of electoral support in the last elections.

Not only must our people realise that they must live with the reality of subversion for a long, long time but they must also know how subversion works. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, not many people believe this.

There are still many people in Singapore who are easy prey for subversives. After all, in the last elections thousands of people were taken in by Mr Leong Mun Kwai and his friends into voting for their candidates or the candidates they supported. After all, Mr Leong, as did Mr Raman, did succeed in impressing a very intelligent man like Mr Jeyaretnam and his friends in the Workers Party that they were true and loyal Singaporeans working for Singapore and many people did vote for Mr Jeyaretnam. True, Mr Jeyaretnam claims that he is no fool, but the fact remains that Mr Leong and Mr Raman did fool Mr Jeyaretnam. They must have, for it could not be, I hope, that Mr Jeyaretnam knew what both of them were up to. In fact, Mr Raman has fooled him so completely that even after Mr Raman admitted publicly that he was a communist, Mr Jeyaretnam stated publicly that Mr Raman was not a communist. So when one can fool a man to the point where he makes a fool of himself, that is fooling with complete success. Maybe Mr Jeyaretnam knows Mr Raman's mind better than Mr Raman does. If Mr Leong and Mr Raman can so completely fool Mr Jeyaretnam, then I do not believe that even tomorrow, after listening to this, he will withdraw his public statement that Mr Raman is not a communist. He will still persist in believing that Mr Raman is not a communist. So if they can fool Mr Jeyaretnam to make foolish utterances, then that is all the more reason why we should redouble our efforts to educate our people about the reality of subversion and its devious ways. And this is one of the reasons why so much of time and space is being devoted in the newspapers to publicising the statements, the admissions, by Mr Raman. Tomorrow it will be Mr Arun, and I do not know who else during the coming weeks.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. It appears that Mr G. Raman has been involved in subversive activities for quite some time. Generally speaking, communist activists are believed to be disciplined adults.

Mr Speaker: What is the Member's supplementary question?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: May I ask the hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs what brought about the voluminous confessions of Mr G. Raman in such a short time?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago I wrote an article in which I divided our communists, and possibly communists in other countries, into two categories. The first category comprises dedicated communists who believe in their cause and who will die for their cause. The other category, to summarise my thesis, comprises what I would call ``goat communists". These are the liberals who play at revolution, and the communists often use them, as in World War II when the Army wanted to clear a mine field `they first sent goats to find out where the mines were and to explode them. They are expendables.

That is the role of people like Mr Raman and others. He is not the only one to come out and confess. Earlier on we had a ballerina and others who confessed. These are affluent communists, goat communists, who play at revolution. They think there is a lot of excitement, hoping to find a place for themselves - you know, thwarted ambitions, personal grudges, vanity. So they play around. And they believed that because they had very powerful friends in the United Kingdom, the Western world, who are liberals, newspaper men, to play up their cause, we would be scared to proceed against them. But the moment we do, when they are detained and brought for interrogation they see the evidence that we have and the prospect that if they do not tell the truth they can be detained for five years. If the PAP is going to last for the next 15 years, then they must ask themselves, is this what revolution is all about? Because if the communists come, as has happened in one or two countries in this part of the world, the first people they eliminate are the goat communists who, they say, are weak enough to simulate communism and therefore are dangerous, because when Communism is in power they will simulate liberalism. So they exterminate them.

Sir, I suspect that people like Mr Raman and so on are affluent communists, part-time communists, goat communists.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs re-affirm in this House that despite the public confessions of both Mr G. Raman and Mr Leong Mun Kwai relations between Singapore and countries like Malaysia and the United Kingdom will continue to be good?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have stated earlier, the relations between the governments are good, because we do not regard these operations as operations conducted by the respective governments. Both governments, I believe, are equally satisfied that on basic issues. Singapore/ Malaysia and Singapore/Britain in particular. we have the same objective, that is, to preserve a non-communist world. In fact, if there is any digression or diversion by black operations. we are really tripping one another. I hope this realisation will sink in because relations between the governments are good and, I hope, will continue to be good, unless, of course, the Communists should take over these countries. Then, of course, relations must be invariably bad.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in the light of communist subversion which, as the hon. Minister has just mentioned, Singapore will continue to face, it is noted that SAF officers will be given instruction on Marxism-Leninism. Will the Hon. Minister enlighten this House - in what way will such instruction or training assist the Government in its efforts to counter this threat?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the education has already started, and we have got the best lecturer on Marxism-Leninism in Mr Raman. He has been telling the people for the last two days exactly how they operate. We cannot convince Mr Jeyaretnam. but fortunately for us, Singapore does not consist of Jeyaretnams. So this is the first lesson in Marxism-Leninism, not in theory but in practice. We hope tomorrow everybody will listen to Mr Arun who is not a Marxist but who has been dragged in. He will be narrating how they operate. There is a gentleman called Mr Derek Davies who is also, I think, a stooge, an unwitting stooge, of the communists.

These are lessons in Marxism - how the communists can manipulate non-communists or near-communists without their knowing that they are being manipulated. This is one lesson which has already started. I hope it will be supplemented by more systematic instructions in Marxism-Leninism, not as they say it is but as it actually is. I hope that Members of Parliament will buy the Marxist-Leninist books available in Singapore, study them, and also listen to the speeches of the Minister for Home Affairs who from time to time issues little statements to show what Marxism really is.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one question I want to ask. We are a member of the Commonwealth, are we not?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Then we can bring this matter up at a meeting of Commonwealth countries. If we say that Tan Wah Piow's case is a very small matter, another case will come up. Whether or not, it will be considered at a meeting of Commonwealth countries, we should seek their assistance. What is the use of being in the Commonwealth if they are not cooperating with us? They are going against us. Tan Wah Piow has been accepted by them. They should know that Singapore is a member of the Commonwealth. They should do something about it. The Foreign Minister should take immediate action on this matter. It may be a very small matter but in future it may be a big affair. Singapore must be very careful.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Member. But I have made it quite clear that Mr Tan Wah Piow's operation had not been directed by the Commonwealth. It had been directed by a small group of gentlemen. One was Malcolm Caldwell, who has claimed that he is even superior to Mao because he says he is an anarcho-Maoist. These are individuals who are usually of some influence. They have got him a place in Bradford University. I think the best punishment we can inflict on those responsible for this is to let them have Tan Wah Piow, because sooner or later he is going to create trouble for them too. I think it is better to leave him there, let him be a good lawyer or a bad lawyer. Let them feed him and look after him. That is better than locking him up here and feeding him.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. It may be a small group of persons doing this business. But does not the Government accept the fact that that university is under the control of the Government of the United Kingdom? Why do we allow them to accept him? That Government should stop him.

An hon. Member: He has got friends there.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs has mentioned that people like G. Raman and company are the "good" or "soft" Communists.

Some hon. Members: "Goat".

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Oh, goat communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, my question really is this. Does he mean, therefore, that our Ministry of Home Affairs has been successful only in respect of tackling the soft Communists? Where are the hardcore ones?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a few hard-core ones who have not confessed, I mean, you know their names. But who their masters are, we do not know. They may not be in Singapore at all. You read Mr Raman's statement today. Communists are like weeds. You weed them, they grow, and unfortunately you have got to keep on weeding. The moment you stop weeding, the weeds will cover the grass, and that is the end of Singapore.