Mr HO JUAN THAI

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the statement made by Mr Tan Chay Wa shortly before his death, whether he will now withdraw his allegation that Mr Ho Juan Thai was actively connected with Mr Tan Chay Wa and that the Workers' Party has provided cover for subversive activities and, if he is not prepared to withdraw his allegations, will he order a public inquiry into this serious allegation against this political party.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has over-reacted to my written reply to him on 3rd December, 1982 on Ho Juan Thai. To refresh his memory, I would like to recapitulate what I had conveyed to him earlier in my written reply. I had stated that there was prima facie evidence to justify Mr Ho Juan Thai's possible detention under the Internal Security Act and that Mr Ho's championing of Mr Tan Chay Wa's cause was an indication of Mr Ho's political sympathies and, possibly, also his affiliations.

I had also stated that this and the fact that Mr Ho sought refuge in Mr Tan Chay Wa's house for two days to escape arrest "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 (Singapore People's Liberation Organisation), the Worker's Party may have provided Mr Ho with the cover for things less innocent than providing constitutional opposition."

The Member for Anson has now produced a statement by Mr Tan Chay Wa which Mr Tan gave on 16th January 1983 before his execution. The Member for Anson had not, however, disclosed how he came into possession of this new statement of Mr Tan Chay Wa. In the statement, Mr Tan claimed that Mr Ho did not have 'the slightest organisational relationship' with him and that he "absolutely did not know Ho Juan Thai and had never seen him".

On the contrary we have evidence that casts very grave doubts on Mr Tan Chay Wa's claim. The Malaysian authorities had informed us in 1979 that when Mr Tan was arrested by the Malaysian Special Branch, he gave the following statement on Mr Ho Juan Thai and I quote:

'Since 1976, a Nanyang University graduate named Ho Juan Thai stayed at Nanyang Avenue area in Singapore. He stayed near our house and used to borrow telephone.

In 1977 (sic), Ho Juan Thai stood in general election on a Workers' Party ticket. As he gave a prejudicial speech during public rally, the police came to arrest him at his rented place. Ho escaped and hid in bush, and was wet because of heavy rain. Subsequently, he sought refuge in our house for two days. Before departed our house he mentioned that he was going to look for his friend (details not known) in West Malaysia. If he was not arrested he would telephone by hitting at the telephone 3 times which meant he had safely escaped police arrest. Later, Ho Juan Thai did make such call.' Why should Mr Tan Chay Wa discuss Mr Ho Juan Thai at all in his statement to the Malaysian Special Branch if he did not know Ho as he claimed? From his statement Mr Tan Chay Wa clearly had intimate knowledge of Mr Ho Juan Thai, how he had avoided police arrest, was harboured in his house for two days and escaped safely to West Malaysia.

Mr Tan Chay Wa was an important cadre of the CPM underground organization. He remained steadfast to his communist ideology even up to his execution. It was therefore natural for Mr Tan, a communist, to do a good turn for Mr Ho Juan Thai by disclaiming any underground organizational links with him. Mr Tan had good reasons to do this out of gratitude to Mr Ho who had, through FUEMSSO, tried very hard to save him from the gallows. It also made good sense to him to use his last breath to protect and defend Mr Ho his ardent supporter. By doing this, he would also be advancing his communist cause. According to the communist ideology, it is justifiable for any of its followers to use any means including telling a lie and even committing murder to advance the communist cause. A staunch communist terrorist does not believe in afterlife but only in the existence of this world.

The facts I have stated clearly substantiate my conclusion set out in my written reply of 3rd December 1982 to the Member for Anson, and I quote: "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". However, no action was taken against the Workers' Party in the case of the SPLO because our Internal Security Department came to the conclusion that the Party (meaning the Workers' Party) had provided the cover more out of ignorance and foolishness rather than deliberate subversive intent. So the Workers' Party was given the benefit of the doubt. There is no necessity to hold a public inquiry as suggested by the Member for Anson for it would be a sheer waste of time and public funds.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, I thought, would ask how I got the statement. Is the Minister saying that it is not a genuine document? Would he answer that, first? Is he saying that it is not a genuine document that emanated from Pudu Prison?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a lawyer he should know that it is a non sequitur, it does not follow. I am just asking how did he get hold of this document. I did not say that I have doubts as to the genuineness of that statement. I have doubts as to the truth of that statement.

Mr Jeyaretnam: As usual, we never get any direct answers to direct questions in this House. It is always a merry-go-round the bush, here we go. Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister -

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Are you not doing the same thing?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister agree that it is highly wrong for him to hide behind the privilege of this House and to make unfounded allegations against this man, Mr Ho Juan Thai, and the Workers' Party? If he says he has got prima facie evidence or facts, why is he not prepared to appoint a public inquiry into these allegations? We are ready to face them. When we ask for an inquiry, it is always refused.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, he accuses me of not answering the question. When I have asked the question, he does not answer. How did you come in possession of that document?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I am asking the question and the Minister has to answer.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is a very childish answer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer my question.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Well, I am going to answer your question. As far as the Government is concerned, we are not hiding behind the privilege of this House. It is quite clear that - from my answer which has been set out - there is no necessity of a public inquiry because it is obvious that it is a waste of public funds and time. As I have stated, we have put all the facts before this House. We have got a statement of Mr Tan Chay Wa which indicates that he knew Mr Ho Juan Thai because he had given details of how he escaped; and that was a statement given immediately after he was arrested in 1977.

Then we had this case of Ho Juan Thai coming up, I think it was sometime last year. There had been refutations of what we had stated about Ho Juan Thai who had fled from Singapore because he refused to submit himself to interrogation by the Police for what he had done during the election time, i.e. trying to raise communal emotions and accusing the Government of killing Chinese culture, education and language. We say that we have a prima facie case against Mr Ho Juan Thai. But the Member for Anson says, "Why cannot you give him immunity from the law?" By law, I mean not the rule of law which the Member for Anson has in mind.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Your rule of law!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: But the law of Singapore passed by this Parliament. It is not my rule of law. It is the law passed by this Parliament and the ISA is part of the law. Are you challenging the authority of Parliament? Is the Member for Anson saying that the ISA is not part of the law of Singapore which has been passed in Parliament? No answer. How can we give such an undertaking? To do so, it will be abdicating -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer my question.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Of course, I am going to answer your question. We will be abdicating our responsibility if we give such an undertaking. Our point is that before we move, either under ISA or to charge him in court, we want him here so that he can be questioned. We cannot give any undertaking of immunity from the laws of this land which have been passed by Parliament. If the Member for Anson is a good supporter or Ho Juan Thai is a good supporter of him, why does he not persuade Mr Ho Juan Thai to come back here and face the music, i.e. face the law of this land which has been passed by Parliament? He is a lawyer and he should know better.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister makes, may I say, wild allegations not only about Mr Ho Juan Thai's alleged involvement with Mr Tan Chay Wa but also about his going into hiding. We challenge him to hold a public inquiry on these allegations. He now says it will be a waste of time. Am I to understand that he thinks that a public inquiry will be a waste of time because he will have no evidence to bring forward? Is that why it is going to be a waste of time? It is not a question of whether Tan Chay Wa knew Ho Juan Thai. The question is: Was Ho Juan Thai involved in any communist subversive activities? That is the question.

An hon. Member: Why did he run away?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to the question which is posed by the Member for Anson. He asks:

'... if he is not prepared to withdraw his allegations, will he order a public inquiry into this serious allegation against this political party [i.e. the Workers' Party]. Can he clarify this? Is he asking for an inquiry to clear Mr Ho Juan Thai or an inquiry into the Workers' Party? We say that an inquiry into the Workers' Party is a waste of time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I say order an inquiry into your allegations against Mr Ho Juan Thai and the Workers' Party. We will answer them. Go on, and order it.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the Workers' Party is concerned, I do not think we need to incur a waste of public funds to hold an inquiry. Even their accounts, I believe, have been looked into by the Official Receiver. I think that is also a waste of public funds. If we would want to hold an inquiry into the Workers' Party itself, although the end of it may not be good for the Member for Anson I think -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why do you not go on and order it?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Why should we waste public funds because the Workers' Party's antics are so obvious to the public? Besides, as far as Ho Juan Thai is concerned, why should we hold a public inquiry to clear him? He is a fugitive from Singapore. What we are asking him to do is to come back and be interrogated and face the law of this land. To hold an inquiry into Ho Juan Thai is a waste of time and public funds. It is something so ridiculous that I do not think I need to say anything further. Why should we have an inquiry into Ho Juan Thai? Who is he? He is a fugitive who has escaped arrest after having made certain statements accusing the Government of killing Chinese culture and arousing the emotions of the people.

In fact, the Member for Anson should be very grateful that the Government statement on the SPLO has exonerated his party because our Internal Security Department came to the conclusion that if ever they had given cover to the SPLO it was more out of foolishness and ignorance.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you that I shall not get up after this. But may I just ask the Minister whether he has now made a complete turnaround. He says the Workers' Party has been exonerated by the ISD. So why is he seeking the privilege of this House to make allegations against the Workers' Party?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: There again, I think the Member for Anson is either hard of hearing or he refuses to understand what I have stated. I said that as far as the Singapore People's Liberation Organization's instance is concerned, they have been exonerated. But as far as Ho Juan Thai is concerned, we are still waiting for him to come back,to be interrogated. I still stand on my statement that they may again have provided cover for subversives like Mr Ho Juan Thai. I hope that is clear enough.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not.

Mr Speaker: I think we have spent a lot of time on this Question. Next question.