MR HO JUAN THAI

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will now give an assurance that Mr Ho Juan Thai will be allowed to return to Singapore if he so wishes and that he will not be arrested on his arrival for interrogation by I.S.D. officers and subsequently detained under the Internal Security Act.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: The Government cannot give the assurance requested by the Member for Anson as it is tantamount to a request that Mr Ho Juan Thai be given immunity from the law.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) is part of the law of the land and there is prima facie evidence on what Mr Ho has said and done to justify his possible detention under the ISA.

Mr Ho Juan Thai, the defeated Workers' Party (WP) candidate in the 1976 General Elections, had played up gut issues on Chinese language, education and culture during his election campaign. At four different rallies he accused the government of "killing Chinese education" when he knew that the government's policy had all along been to give equal treatment to all four language streams and to encourage bi-lingualism. During a WP rally at Fullerton Square on 14 December 1976, he said in Mandarin:

"And before they tried to kill Chinese education, they put forward the idea that English is very important in this industrial society. We do not deny the importance of the English language. But this should not be done at the expense of the destruction of Chinese language . . . . . ."

Again, during a WP rally at Marsiling Road Car Park on 19 December 1976, he said in Mandarin:

"What is PAP's another achievement in education?

Their achievement is to kill Chinese education."

He was out to incite the Chinese-speaking population and to stir up communal and chauvinistic emotions.

Mr Ho knew the well-established and clearly stated policy of the government that action would be taken against those who exploit sensitive issues of race, language and religion that would pose a security threat in our multi-racial society. He also knew from the 1972 and 1968 elections that such action would be taken by the government after the elections. Thus on Polling Night, on his own initiative he immediately went into hiding.

On Polling Night, 23 December 1976 when the police went to find him at Block 48A, 123X Dorset Road, Singapore 8, the address he had registered as his place of residence, they could not find him there. The police then looked for him at several other places he frequented including No 64D Nanyang Avenue. But he had managed to flee. The police wanted Mr Ho to answer questions relating to the speeches he had made, and to determine whether he was acting alone or in concert with more dangerous and violent men.

In Mr Ho's letter which was published in the Straits Times on 14 October 1982, he said that he had championed the cause of Mr Tan Chay Wa, a communist terrorist tried and convicted for possession of a firearm and seven rounds of ammunition by the Malaysian courts, in his appeal for reprieve against the death sentence. Mr Tan was a district committee member of the underground Malayan National Liberation Front, a satellite organisation of the Communist Party of Malaya. This is an indication of Mr Ho's political sympathies and possibly, also his affiliations.

No 64D Nanyang Avenue was one of Mr Ho's hideouts. It was next to No 58D Nanyang Avenue which was the official address of Mr Tan Chay Wa. Mr Tan was then wanted for arrest for involvement in Malayan National Liberation Front activities. The police subsequently ascertained that Mr Ho frequently went to Mr Tan's house. When he escaped from the police who went to look for him, he sought refuge in Mr Tan's house for two days. He subsequently telephoned a member of Mr Tan's family through a pre-arranged code to indicate that he had escaped safely.

The above facts require clarification through the interrogation of Mr Ho. His agitation for the release of Mr Tan Chay Wa is not purely out of gratitude for harbouring him and aiding his escape. It is another matter to be clarified by interrogation of Mr Ho.

As in other cases like the SPLO, the Workers' Party may have provided Mr Ho with the cover for things less innocent than providing constitutional opposition.