MARXIST CONSPIRACY (Protest against criticisms in Malaysia of arrests)

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will ask the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to lodge a protest with the Malaysian Government over statements made by various groups in Malaysia criticising the arrests under the Internal Security Act of persons involved in the Marxist conspiracy.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a protest can only be lodged with a foreign government over actions attributable to that government. In the case of the arrests under the ISA, the question of protest does not arise because the Malaysian Government on its part has not done anything which amounts to interference in our internal affairs. On the contrary, the Malaysian Prime Minister and their Foreign Minister have publicly stated that the Malaysian Government could not interfere in the matter as it was strictly a Singapore affair. This is consistent with the practice which both Governments have always adopted of not interfering with each other's actions to deal with internal security problems.

It is true, however, that a number of Malaysian organizations have protested against the arrests. They have demanded that the detainees be released unconditionally, immediately, or be charged in court. Some have alleged that those arrested did not pose a threat to the security of Singapore and that our security action was a move to suppress political opponents. Some have even called for the abolition of the ISA.

I am sure that hon. Members would have noticed some strange and interesting aspects of these protests. First, these arrests are not the first time that we have acted under the Internal Security Act. Yet, none of these organizations protested before. It is only when we unmasked a Marxist conspiracy of English-educated graduates that they felt compelled to protest, although it has got nothing whatsoever to do with them. It is more than likely that the FUEMSSO Singapore members had worked together with their Malaysian counterparts whilst they were in Britain.

Secondly, except for one organization, they did not protest when we announced at about the same time the arrests of another group of four Singaporeans who were members of a silat group spreading rumours and actively making preparations for racial clashes. Why? None of the organizations ventured to explain this double standard.

Thirdly, these organizations claim to have a principled stand against the ISA. Yet, while they loudly protested against the arrests in Singapore, there was a deafening silence on their part when subversive elements were arrested in their own country under their ISA in May 1987.

Fourthly, they conveniently ignored the fact that the Internal Security Act of Singapore is based on the Malaysian Internal Security Act. And unlike organizations in the West, these organizations cannot claim ignorance of the security threats from communists, racial and religious extremists which have led to the ISA remaining in the statute books of both Malaysia and Singapore.

Sir, it is obvious that these organizations have double standards and have some ulterior motive in making Singapore as their whipping boy. And some have axes to grind. For they cannot believe that their protests can bring about results in Singapore. I must leave Members to form their own conclusions as to why is it that it is only our exposure and disruption of the Marxist conspiracy of English-educated graduates, including UK-returned students, that caused these organizations to express righteous indignation, while they remain disinterested over others whom we have arrested under the ISA.

The Singapore Government is accountable to the people of Singapore. The more foreign groups or individuals interfere, the more closely we examine their interests and when these protests come from those against Singapore's interests, the more systematically we proceed to protect our own interests, namely, the stability, security and prosperity of Singapore.