DETENTION OF MR CHIA THYE POH

7.39 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I make no apologies for detaining Members and you, Mr Speaker, Sir, after a long day on this subject on which I have claimed the right to speak on the Adjournment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a subject which must lie on the conscience of all Singaporeans, and lie heavily on the conscience of Singaporeans. It is to quicken that conscience that I have raised this matter in this House. This is not the first time. I have raised it twice before and I am raising it now again, following what I did previously on this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the sitting of this House on the 14th May this year, I tabled a Question for Written Answer for the Minister for Home Affairs about the number of persons detained as of 1st May under the Internal Security Act, inter alia, other Acts that provided for detention without trial. The Minister in his written reply said:

'As of 1st May 1985, only one person was detained under Section 8 of the Internal Security Act. He is Chia Thye Poh, a member of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Chia was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis and engage in Communist United Front agitation to destabilize the Government. This he did by mounting a series of illegal demonstrations and industrial strikes. Chia was therefore placed under preventive detention in November 1966. He will be released as soon as he is prepared to give a public undertaking disowning the CPM's use of force and terror to overthrow the Government.'

That is the reply about detention under the Internal Security Act. This man saw the reply in the papers on the 15th May, 1985. Then he expressed a desire to see me, arising upon the reply given by the Minister. He wrote a letter to the Minister and sent me a copy of that letter. The letter was written in Chinese (Mandarin) to the Minister. The substance of it was a challenge to the Minister of his accusations against him, Mr Chia Thye Poh: a challenge to the accusations that he was a member of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya and that he was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis, and a challenge to the allegation that he did this by mounting a series of illegal demonstrations and industrial strikes. He pointed out that there was no truth in these allegations, and he quoted a Chinese phrase about calling a stag a horse to nail him.

When I saw him at the detention centre, Mr Speaker, Sir, he was very upset by this. He was very upset for a number of reasons, chiefly on these allegations that he was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya and that he was specifically instructed to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis. They have never been made the subject or the grounds for his detention when they were first served on him, way back in 1966. I do not want to be very long on this, but it is well worth - I do not think any length of time is too long to state the case for Mr Chia Thye Poh. He said to me, when I saw him, that the organizations he belonged to were all legal organizations. He said he was a member of the Chinese Middle School Union; he was the Vice-President of the Nanyang University Students Union from 1958 to 1960; and then from 1961 to 1962 he was a Member of the Council of the Guild of Graduates of Nanyang University. In 1961 he joined the Barisan Sosialis after the split with the PAP. He said he had never taken part in illegal demonstrations or, as the Minister put it, "in a series of demonstrations". If I may look at his answer again, "a series of illegal demonstrations." He said he had only taken pan in one demonstration, and that was to protest the US involvement in Vietnam. He was charged for that in court and punished. He said it was not true that he was involved in many industrial strikes. So he was very upset that not only these false allegations should be made but that they should be made so late, after 19 years of detention, and that they should be made without giving him a chance to reply to those allegations. It is one of the cardinal principles of natural justice, of which the Minister must be aware, that you do not condemn a man unheard. You give him an opportunity to be heard. He was very upset about that.

I asked another question in Parliament on 23rd July 1985, again for a Written Answer of the Minister for Home Affairs. The question was whether "the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (a) had received the letter of 20th May 1985 from Mr Chia Thye Poh; and (b) if he has replied to the letter and, if not, does he propose to." The answer given by the Minister was this [col. 2451:

'The MP for Anson is fully aware that I have received the letter since a copy of that letter was sent to him by my Ministry at Chia's request. Chia in his letter merely denied the allegations against him and wanted to register his protest over the allegations. The letter did not call for a reply.

For reasons best known to himself Chia has not bothered to challenge any of the allegations or grounds of his detention before the Advisory Board since his detention in November 1966. Chia knows that he is legally entitled to present his case to the Board which is an independent review board comprising a High Court judge and 2 prominent members of the public. He can engage his own counsel to represent him.'

What the Minister forgets is this man's complaint that these allegations that he was a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia and that he had been specifically instructed by the Communist Party of Malaysia to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis were never made to him. They were made for the first time this year, and the Minister says, "He could have rebutted these allegations before the independent review board." I cannot follow this answer of the Minister. You have had this man detained for 19 years. You do not specify these grounds until 19 years have gone past and then you say, "Oh, well, he could have answered these grounds." I simply fail to understand the logic of this answer. But I am not here to quibble about the logic of these answers.

My plea to this Government is: how long more do you want to keep this man in prison? What is the crime that he has committed that he should spend the rest of his life in prison, virtually in solitary confinement? I ask: what is his crime? Whatever the reasons may have been in 1966 for his detention, I do not know whether the Government then had sufficient reasons, but whatever the reasons may have been, the question that the Minister and the Government should address itself to, today, is: is his continued detention still necessary, even if it was necessary in 1966? We are not living in 1966. We are living in 1985. Would the Minister say how the continued detention of Mr Chia Thye Poh is still necessary today? How does he jeopardize Singapore's security? How does he threaten the peace of Singapore?

The Minister in his reply on the detention says this:

'He will be released as soon as he is prepared to give a public undertaking disowning the CPM's use of force and terror to overthrow the Government.'

If he is not a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia, what good is his disowning the CPM's use of force? I do not understand that either. What good does it do to the Government that he should disown somebody else's use of force and terror to overthrow the Government? Would the Minister explain what good would that be? He says he was never a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia and, as I said, in a press conference, if the Government has the evidence that this man is still a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia, they have a remedy. Prosecute him in court for being a member of an illegal organization that is operating in Singapore, carrying out activities in Singapore through him. The answer is simple. The Government does not have that evidence.

This is not a matter for jest. This concerns a human being. It concerns a family. It concerns his aged parents. His father made a press statement in my office sometime ago, a moving plea to this Government to release his son. So I hope that this Government will heed the plea. There have been pleas made to the Government by organizations outside Singapore, if not by persons inside Singapore. But even if you do not want to heed the plea of these organizations outside Singapore, Amnesty in particular, he is a prisoner of conscience adopted by the Amnesty. I would ask the Government to hear the plea of the father and the mother.

We talk so much about Asian values. We talk about family ties. We talk about filial duties. But is this a part of Asian value that a man should be detained for 19 years? For what crime? Not any crime against the written laws of the country. Because if there was a crime, then he could have been charged in court. He was simply detained because he dared to oppose the Government policies.

He did not tell me this but I am told that he was a brilliant student at Nanyang University. He did Political Science and people who have spoken of him said that he was by far one of the best students, brilliant. Is this what you do to people who have merit, who have brilliance about them? Is this what you do to them because you do not like what they have to say about you? Because they dared to criticize you? If that is what you are going to do to brilliant people who criticize you, lock them up for 19 years, then the Government's call for meritocracy, the Government's call for brilliance, all sounds hollow. I hope the Government realizes this.

Here is a brilliant man who could have given his services to Singapore, contributed to Singapore's welfare and progress but who is simply wasting his time away in prison.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know how much time I have?

Mr Speaker: About 11 minutes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that I cannot deal with all the detailed points raised by the Member for Anson, and to save time, I will ask the Clerk to kindly distribute, with your permission, two lists (Cols. 489 - 494) - a list of communist united front activities in which Chia Thye Poh participated and a list of speeches and statements made by Chia Thye Poh which advocated armed struggle so that Members can make up their own minds, and I will refer to them. two lists - LIST OF STATEMENTS MADE BY CHIA THYE POH WHICH ADVOCATED ARMED STRUGGLE, LIST OF COMMUNIST UNITED FRONT ACTIVITIES CHIA THYE POH PARTICIPATED IN (Cols. 489 - 494)

Sir, in the 11 minutes that I have I will deal with the main issues raised by the Member for Anson. First, his question as to how long more would we want to detain him. Sir, how long more he will be detained is a decision that is very much also in the hands of Mr Chia Thye Poh. Sir, he knows and he has known it for some time that he will be released if he gives a simple undertaking to renounce the use of force as a means of overthrowing the constitutionally elected government and not to assist the CPM or its related organizations. Renounce the use of force as a means of overthrowing the constitutionally elected government. Or he can also be released if he chooses to go to any country that is prepared to accept him.

Has he agreed to renounce the use of force? Sir, he has not only refused to renounce the use of force but he has indicated that he will continue with the activities which he engaged in prior to his detention, if he is released. Not only that, Sir, from 1974 to 1979, while under detention he carried out his pro-communist activities by subverting some of the prison warders and getting them to distribute to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of radio broadcasts of the CPM. Some of the prison warders were later charged in court. The question is: why does he refuse to renounce the use of force as a means of overthrowing the constitutionally elected government?

The Member for Anson talks about natural justice, opportunity to be heard. There is an opportunity provided under the Internal Security Act and he has been asked to avail himself of this opportunity to make representations to the Advisory Board constituted under the Internal Security Act headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A charge has to be made.

Prof. Jayakumar: I will come to that. He has refused to appear before the Advisory Board throughout. The question is why has he refused to appear?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why don't you charge him in court?

Prof. Jayakumar: Why has he refused to appear before the Advisory Board all these years? Why has he refused to renounce the use of force? That is why I say, Sir, that his release or his continued detention is very much in his own hands, and the Government cannot release him so long as he will not renounce the use of force. In fact, on the contrary, he indicates that he will revert to his activities.

The Member for Anson, in his closing remarks, said that he was a prisoner of conscience, that he has been detained because he dared to criticize, that he dared to oppose, and he is a prisoner of conscience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is why, to save time, I have distributed these two lists. As you can see, Chia began advocating violence in 1966 to achieve his political objectives. During the Eighth Annual Delegates Conference, organized by the pro-Communist Labour Party of Malaya, Perak Division, in April 1966, Chia called for the revival of armed struggle in Singapore and Malaya, condemning the "reactionary cliques in Malaysia and Singapore." He called for the armed struggle to overthrow the imperialists and their agents, and asked the audience to emulate the Vietnamese who had resorted to armed action against the US.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

Prof. Jayakumar: I am not giving way,

Mr Speaker: He would not give way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because I want a clarification of his present threats.

Prof. Jayakumar: He urged the audience to resort to armed conflict against the constitutionally elected governments of Malaysia and Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That was in 1966. But today?

Prof. Jayakumar: Is this a prisoner of conscience? Is this a person who was detained for peaceful beliefs, and contrary beliefs? Or for advocating violence? Because of his militant utterances and agitations, the Malaysian Government in 1966 banished him from entering Malaysia. In Singapore, Chia advocated armed revolution to achieve a unified Malaya, a CPM objective, when speaking at a pro-Communist Singapore Commercial House and Factory Employees Union meeting in July 1966. He also abandoned the constitutional means and opted for mass struggle outside Parliament after the Barisan MPs quit Parliament; announced a new mass struggle to take the form of rallies, house-to-house visits, processions, strikes, and other illegal demonstrations. He was involved in these illegal demonstrations in which there was even violence. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, should nail the untruth being pervaded in this House that he was detained for his beliefs or for his conscience.

Then the Member for Anson asks: why do we not charge him in court? This is a very naive question because he must know the reason why the Internal Security Act provides for preventive detention. The Member knows that there are security cases where it is not possible to get witnesses to come to the court because the CPM will intimidate and liquidate potential witnesses. An open trial of a Communist is not possible. Police officers will have to disclose names of witnesses and their lives will be in jeopardy. The CPM and satellite organizations have standing directives to punish with death those who betray the CPM revolution, and these have been carried out. Between 1973 and now, at least 45 Police officers, government officials and civilians have been assassinated by the CPM in Peninsula Malaysia.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson must know that the basic reason as to why certain kinds of cases cannot be dealt with under the normal process is where the witnesses would not come forth, and evidence under the normal rules will not be available because of this fear of intimidation and threats of assassination and liquidation. The Member for Anson claims that he was told only now of his membership of the CPM. This is not true. The first Order of Detention was based on ample grounds, including his activities in the Communist United Front. Chia's membership of the CPM surfaced in 1968, following disclosures of his membership by his CPM superiors. And Chia was informed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: When?

Prof. Jayakumar: In 1968. And he conveniently refused to admit it, and refused to even appear before the Advisory Board.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I know if he had the information by letter?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, as long as the Member for Anson advocates that this person is innocent, my job is to bring all the information here.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am asking you: did you inform him by letter?

Prof. Jayakumar: He was informed in 1968 and in the interviews. Every detainee is interviewed periodically, and he was informed of this, and he knows about it. The Member for Anson must be very careful that he is not taken for a ride. Let me mention: not only was Mr Chia Thye Poh in detention but, as I have said, when in detention between 1974 and 1979 he influenced several warders and used them to send to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of broadcasts of the CPM radio station. And he also used them to try to get the names of senior ISD Police officers. What is more important now is that the CPM broadcasts repeatedly have shown interest in his case. As recently as March 1985, the Voice of Malayan Democracy, a CPM radio broadcast, referred to his case and expressed keen interest in Chia's detention. The question is: is the Member for Anson fully aware of what he has got himself into -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: - in protesting categorically that this person is detained solely for beliefs and for conscience?

Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson went on to say that Mr Chia Thye Poh has been detained virtually in solitary confinement. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I can inform the House that Mr Chia Thye Poh is probably one of the most pampered, if not comfortable, of prisoners. He is not in a solitary confinement in some dark cell. He is comfortably housed in a house situated on three acres of land, half of which is occupied by him -

Mr Jeyaretnam: No visitors.

Prof. Jayakumar: - the other half by one ISD officer and a family who cooks for him home-cooked meals. He can move freely. At his request, he was allowed to plant vegetables. He has a TV, video-recorder and a hi-fi set. He is the most pampered prisoner in Singapore, and he is not in solitary confinement.

The Question having been proposed at Twenty-one minutes to Eight o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Eight o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. statement - STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Cols. 487 - 488) two lists - LIST OF STATEMENTS MADE BY CHIA THYE POH WHICH ADVOCATED ARMED STRUGGLE, LIST OF COMMUNIST UNITED FRONT ACTIVITIES CHIA THYE POH PARTICIPATED IN (Cols. 489 - 494)