MARXIST CONSPIRACY (Detentions Under Internal Security Act)

Debate resumed.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I respond to the various points raised in the debate by hon. Members. First, let me dispose of certain preliminary specific points before dealing with the thrust of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Potong Pasir and the amendment of the Member for Clementi.

First, the Member for Radin Mas asked me to clarify whether it was true that those arrested, all of them, were Catholics. The answer is no. Of the 22 who were arrested, only 4 were Catholics.

Second, the Member also asked for some clarification with regard to Tan Wah Piow's extradition and he referred to the press report in the Straits Times, which quoted the new British High Commissioner, that the Singapore Government had not made a formal request for the extradition of Tan Wah Piow. Sir, it is common knowledge that Tan Wah Piow has been wanted for a long time by the Singapore Government. We all know that he had committed an offence under the Enlistment Act when he failed to report for national service. He disappeared mysteriously and we later learned that he had fled to the United Kingdom. We were, of course, aware of the state of the travel document that he had when he left Singapore. We had photocopies of the passport supplied to us by the British High Commission and on that basis we suspected that he had forged the passport in order to gain entry into the United Kingdom.

The matter was reopened in late 1986 when we were investigating the Marxist conspiracy. We asked the British Government to return the actual passport and it was returned to us in February 1987. An examination of the passport confirmed that Tan Wah Piow had made use of a forged document for purposes of entry into the United Kingdom. We had wanted to extradite Tan Wah Piow but the Attorney- General advised that it was not possible to make a formal request for extradition for the following reasons:

First, the offence under the Enlistment Act was not an extraditable offence.

Second, the offence of having used a false document for purposes of gaining entry into the United Kingdom was an offence which was committed outside Singapore and therefore it was not extraditable.

Third, he advised that it was only the United Kingdom Government which could punish or try Tan Wah Piow for the offence of having entered United Kingdom on a false document.

Fourth, he advised that it was not possible to seek extradition for purposes of investigation under the Internal Security Act of Tan Wah Piow's role in the Marxist conspiracy.

Hence, for these legal reasons, it is not possible to make a formal request for extradition.

Another specific query which was raised was by the Member for Eunos who asked, in the context of yesterday's question for oral answer on foreign organizations and connections, whether there were any foreign organizations or connections with regard to the four members of the Silat group who were arrested. Sir, the answer to that is indeed there is a connection. Members will recall that the four persons- Maznan, Mohamed Noor, Jumaat and Abdul Gani - three of them had received training in Scudai, Johor Baru, from a spiritual Silat group known as the Budi Suci Sejati. Training involved ritual baths, silat stances and recitation of Quranic verses. Members will recall that this group of four persons were responsible for spreading rumours of racial clashes on or around May 13 and had been actively making preparations for these racial clashes, including sharpening of parangs, charming parangs, distribution of red sashes which were supposed to make them invulnerable. In the midst of all this when they went to Scudai for training sessions, the BSS leaders told the group, in particular Maznan, that the BSS groups in Kuala Lumpur and Johor would come and assist them if there were racial clashes in Singapore. Maznan was asked specifically to select at least 10 Singaporeans who could be sent to Johor for training in spiritual powers of the BSS. Fortunately, Sir, the group was arrested before Maznan could recruit the 10 instructors who were then supposed to instruct others in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir as well as a few other Members have asked me about all these allegations of torture. I have already publicly given a comprehensive statement. Just to reiterate the points that I have made, there is no truth in these allegations. First of all, we do not do these things and you cannot expect to do these things and get away with it in Singapore. Secondly, we do not do it not only because it is wrong but because it is unnecessary. Because each time we act under the ISA, we do so only after we have information, evidence, grounds, which we confront persons whom we arrest. Thirdly, Sir, Members will realize that no relative and no lawyer for the detainees has made any complaint of ill treatment. Fourthly, during interrogations, doctors are available to attend to the needs of detainees to see if they are fit to proceed. Indeed, interrogation of one detainee was stopped on medical advice on account of a flu. The Member for Potong Pasir obviously relies only on mischievous reports in the foreign press but he does not even consider local press and Malaysian press reports. The girl, Ng Bee Leng, reported in the press:

'The entire period of my detention I was not physically assaulted. Nobody laid a hand on me.'

She confirmed that she had vomitted. But why? She said:

'I have been feeling quite sick. I was about to catch the flu.'

And the doctors also advised that she was suffering from flu.

What about the others? The Member for Potong Pasir, if he had read press accounts, would have found others, Mah Lee Lin, was quoted by the press:

'I have been treated very nicely by the officers. They gave me everything I wanted.'

Jenny Chin reported in the Malaysian press that she was well treated during her detention.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there will always be mischievous reports in foreign newspapers. The Members of this House must be aware of the motives and intentions of those who purvey these reports in the foreign press.

Sir, may I now proceed to deal with the main points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. First of all, he argues that these arrested persons are idealists, harmless, may not engage in anything which can be said to be a threat to the security of Singapore. Is that so? What are the facts? Others Members have recounted some of them. What has Vincent Cheng told us? That he was a Marxist in contact with Filipino communists, that he was, on instructions, setting up a Communist network, that he was, using, again on instructions, typical Communist united front tactics to infiltrate lawful organizations, that he was deliberately, as a matter of strategy, using religious organizations and religious publications. He thought it was a safe cover, that it would give them immunity.

More than that: What was the plan to build up pressure groups to confront the Government, first, peacefully and then what? Escalating into mass events, leading to public disorder and maybe even riots, bloodshed and violence. Let us also not forget that Filipino communists were brought to Singapore to direct plays for the Third Stage.

One member even attended a terrorist camp in Sri Lanka. Distribution of religious publications, contents of which were out and out political agitation. Distributed to whom? Distributed to priests with the intention of influencing them for it will have a multiplier effect on their congregation. Is that innocent? Infiltration of lawful organizations to hijack them away from their legitimate and legal objects for purposes of political agitation. Is that innocent?

The Member for Serangoon Gardens put it in the proper context, ie, that we must view this not in isolation but in the context of our past. Have we forgotten our past, the chaos, bloodshed, violence caused by communists and racial agitators? Here, the recent episode has not one but two volatile elements, the Marxist element and the element of misuse of religion. Each by itself alone is potential for causing a tremendous explosive situation in Singapore.

The Member for Potong Pasir says liberation theology is something new to him. But if he wants to engage in a debate here, he must get to know something about it. And I would urge him to start reading about it because it has very serious implications. Let me just give the following quotation:

'Communists in Asian and Pacific nations are increasingly using Christian charities and humanitarian agencies to fund insurgencies and further their revolutionary aims. They are being helped in the strategy by radicals in third world churches and Christian aid bodies in Australia and New Zealand who are able to manipulate religious funding organizations. Unwitting church support for radical causes has gone not only to the Philippines and Singapore but also to Indonesia, East Timor, Sri Lanka and the Pacific islands.'

This is not a Ministry of Home Affairs' press statement. It is the Washington Times of 7th July 1987!

Let us therefore not under-estimate the potential of the problems that we have. Let us not under-estimate the problems that the CPM can pose. The CPM is still operating in the jungles in Malaysia. If the Member had read press reports, there were assassinations recently. Has the Member forgotten that there is a CPM clandestine radio station which broadcasts daily? The CPM underground still exists in Singapore. So let us be clear that we are not talking about activities which are exclusively and totally harmless. These are activities which have potential for tremendous damage to our nation.

On this basis, he goes on to develop the point that they should be released immediately. He says, "Well, they've gone on television. They've said all that they have to say. We have established the case. So release them." He says he knows one of them. "Show humanitarian feelings and compassion." We are not devoid of humanitarian feelings. It does not give us great pleasure and we do not relish in taking this action. The First Deputy Prime Minister told you just now with what care the matter was evaluated. Precisely because it is a decision which has got to be taken carefully. Some of them were law students in the Law Faculty in which I taught. A few of them were my students. Do I relish in taking action against them without grounds? There are grounds and there must be grounds when we act.

When we release a person, when we arrest a person, when we detain a person, these are decisions which must be based on security considerations. We have made it clear in the press releases that they will be released even before the expiry of the detention orders if we are satisfied that they are rehabilitated and are unlikely to resume their subversive activities. That is a key criterion which is essential in deciding whether to release a person or not. Not because a person swears on TV or off TV that he will never do it again. The Member for Potong Pasir is a lawyer. He must have come across many cases of accused persons in court who will swear till they are blue in the face that they will never do it again. Does he really believe every one of them?

An hon. Member: He does!

Prof. Jayakumar: It is a pity if he does.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have examples in our recent history of persons who were arrested under the Internal Security Act and detained and were released and went back to the subversive activities. I do not propose to give their names for they are now leading straight lives and I do not wish to embarrass them. But I have their names, detained, released, went back to their subversive activities and had to be arrested again. This underscores the importance of us ensuring and being satisfied that the persons arrested will, in fact, be rehabilitated and are unlikely to resume the subversive activities. Those whom we were satisfied, we have already released them. Out of the original 16, four were released. Of the second group, three were released.

The Member referred to Lim Chin Siong and others who were detained by the British. The PAP asked for their release before it took office. And he says, "Well, this is exactly the same situation." Is it? Does he not realize fundamental distinctions between that situation and now? First, they were detained by the British colonialists, not by an elected government which had the people's mandate to govern, including managing internal security of the country. The British were not elected by the people of Singapore. Unlike now, at each election, Opposition members have made issue of the Internal Security Act. It has been made an issue of and at each election Government's position has been endorsed. Secondly, the PAP was then fighting a battle against the British for independence. Thirdly, when they were released at that time, they published a signed statement where they whole-heartedly and without reservation supported the non-communist aims and objectives of the PAP. But when they welched on their promise and they welched on the deal, they were arrested and detained. Members surely have not forgotten that.

On the Member's points about the arrests being to stifle dissent and opposition. Other Members have very effectively demolished these arguments of the Member for Potong Pasir and I do not propose to cover the same ground.

About Tan Wah Piow, the Member says he is a mere student. Nothing to worry about. Well, we beg to differ. He has not read obviously what the close associates of Tan Wah Piow have said. He has obviously not read that Tan Wah Piow's escape from Singapore was facilitated by pro-CPM elements, that Tan Wah Piow had actively campaigned on behalf of CPM members including Tan Chay Wah, a ranking CPM cadre from Singapore who was executed by Malaysia under their laws. Vincent Cheng said that Tan Wah Piow had been very strong on Marxism "all the way" and asked him to adopt united front tactics. William Yap said that Tan Wah Piow told him of his direct links with the CPM and of his trip to Beijing where he met the CPM leaders. William Yap also told us that Tan Wah Piow regarded Peninsula Malaysia and Singapore as one entity, the same approach as the CPM. Tay Hong Seng told us that Tan Wah Piow divulged to him CPM's covert communication system.

I was also amazed at the Member for Potong Pasir's statement that none of these persons has ever said that he is a Marxist. I wonder whether he has read all the information that has been published. He told us that he has not watched some of the TV programmes. It is a pity. I would have assumed that when he takes an important position such as the call for their immediate release he would have at least acquainted himself with the facts. For if he had, surely he would have known what Vincent Cheng said about having accepted Marxism, what Kenneth Tsang said, what Lim Li Kok said, that Communism was a better alternative for our society, and she accepted Communism as a choice for Singapore.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir in his speech said that we have seen in the United States riots and disorder, and yet they are able to handle it. This is just a passing phase. Are we like the United States? Can we handle problems like the United States? We are small, densely populated, with different races, languages and religions. Are we destined to be an independent nation? We are trying our best to run ourselves as an independent country.

Let me quote what one American observer, Robert O. Tilman in a book "Southeast Asia and the enemy beyond" said:

'Of the countries considered here, only Thailand has any reasonable claim to nationhood.'

And quoting from an American scholar, Rupert Emerson:

'Nationhood, described in its ideal form, is a single people, traditionally fixed on a well-defined territory, speaking the same language, preferably a language of its own, possessing a distinguished culture, shaped to a common mould by many generations of shared historical experience.'

Apply any of those tests: are we a nation? We must succeed despite these insuperable difficulties in making ourselves a nation. But to compare ourselves with the United States. They have had over 200 years of history. They fought the British for independence; they fought a civil war. They are so vast, they can cushion against transient problems and crises in one state or county. Let us not compare ourselves with the United States. Let us take a developing country, not Sri Lanka because the Member for Potong Pasir says, "Sri Lankans are less intelligent than Singaporeans. They are wishy-washy." So they are of a lesser breed.

I am going to take India, although he might come out with the same objections to that comparison. Let us take India, a developing country. What is happening there? Sikhs and Hindus fighting each other, killing each other. Hindus and Muslims killing each other. Gurkhas, Dar- jeeling, wanting a different state. It goes on and on. But India is still there. Life still goes on. It is a big country with millions of people. Those outnumbered in a clash can run from one pocket to another pocket. What about Singapore? Where can a person run from one pocket to another pocket? Singapore itself is a pocket! If we had violence like in India and elsewhere, the Member for Serangoon Gardens and others have pointed out, it will be disastrous.

That is why, Sir, the issue here is not so much a specific case of arrested persons. It is a larger issue which, the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, is one of stability and vulnerability. As the First DPM pointed out, we are open to influences, to visitors. We travel, others travel here. We have seen how Vincent Cheng and his group have been exposed to Philippine Communists. We knew what was happening in the Philippines. We knew that religious organizations were being captured by the Communists. We knew that sooner or later it was going to affect Singapore and other countries. That is going to be exported, but of course it happened sooner than we thought. Take the four silat group members. They were influenced by and have connections with groups of spiritual silat in Johore.

But what do we do? Ban foreign travel? Prevent Singaporeans from going abroad? Isolate ourselves? It is not possible. What we have to do is to take note, be ever vigilant to guard against any such threats, especially when they are in the early and incipient stages. That is why, Sir, when there are threats to the security of Singapore, whether by Communists, racial or religious agitators, and when they are in their nascent, early, incipient stages, we can have two approaches to deal with the problem. One approach is what I would call the smoking gun or blood-stained parang approach. In other words, wait until something disastrous happens and then catch the person red-handed with the gun still smoking. The other is to wait for the person to kill a few, and then catch him red-handed with the blood-stained parang. That approach means: Do not take preventive action because there will be howls of protest from various groups. The First Deputy Prime Minister went over these grounds. Should we take that approach? We could have easily done so. But what would have been the consequences? We would have placated all these human rights and other groups. They would say, "Yes, your actions are now in accordance with the law." But Singapore would have gone down the drain, and where would they be? Would they come to rescue us?

Sir, in the ultimate analysis, the security of Singapore cannot be ensured by the smoking gun and blood-stained parang approach. The Member for Potong Pasir said, almost as if in passing, there has been no case of a politician shot in Singapore. Equally so one can ask, there have been no riots, no violence. We have had decades of stability. But why is that so? It is because we have deliberately chosen a strategy of not waiting for the blood-stained parang or the smoking gun. That we have a strategy of nipping problems in the bud. There is no other way, Sir, to guarantee our security. (Applause) 4.10 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In the past, when I met foreigners and told them that I was from Singapore, the usual answer I get was, "Oh, Singapore? Bugis Street." They used to associate Singapore with Bugis Street. But, of course, Bugis Street is now no longer there. So this association now does not exist.

But these days when I go abroad and I say, "I am from Singapore", the answer is, "Oh, Singapore. Beautiful, clean, progressive city. But repressive." This is the sort of international opinion of Singapore. Does the Government want to perpetuate this kind of an opinion? I do not think it is very good. It is true it is known in the world that Singapore has a high standard of living, nice buildings, new motor cars around, but it is also clearly known that Singapore is a place where alternative views, opposition perhaps, and other persons who have got differing views, are clamped down, and not only clamped down, but clamped down hard.

Mr Chandra Das: That includes you? What about you?

Mr Chiam See Tong: One swallow does not make a Summer or a Spring, please. You should know that. Take today's debate, for example. One voice against 14, 15. What sort of contest is that? It is an unequal contest. I do not think it is democratic anyway. How is the newspaper, how is the television, going to edit this programme? I wonder. So what I am saying is that I think the Government should be sensitive to this kind of international outlook of Singapore. I do not think it is a good image for Singapore. So with this detention of 15, I think it will enhance this kind of an image. As a Singaporean if I go abroad, how am I going to defend the Government's position if somebody says, "It is not a very safe place for the Opposition to live in Singapore."

Mr Chandra Das: Still you are around!

Mr Chiam See Tong: As I say, a single swallow does not make the Spring coming, or the Summer coming. So do not go over that ground again, please.

Prof. Jayakumar: Is the Member giving way, Sir, before I speak?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I would be grateful if he would kindly answer these questions. Could he not, as an example of how false the image of repressiveness is, cite the example to foreigners that although his motion had no notice, no seconder, yet we allowed it to be debated fully and fairly here? And how can he reconcile his impressions from foreigners with the growing number of tourists in Singapore and the growing number of investors in Singapore?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought I was gentleman enough not to bring up this question of notice. Now that the Minister has brought it up, I can explain the whole situation. The Minister brought it up, not me.

I did file an Adjournment Motion and, of course, an Adjournment Motion needs only two days' notice, I believe. So it was well in time. For an Adjournment Motion, of course, half an hour is allowed. If I am the sort that hogs the whole half an hour, there will be no chance for the Government side to reply.

An hon. Member: You have only 20 minutes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Or at least very little chance to reply. Then I got a call from the Whip, and he said, "Mr Chiam, I have got something important to talk to you." I obliged. I came down to Parliament House and he said, "Well, this motion is an important topic; of national interest. How about you changing it to a Private Member's Motion where a seconder is required. You do not worry. We will arrange for it. Everything will be done." I have been a sportsman all my life and any sporting gesture will always be reciprocated. Of course, I agreed. I know that if I have a Private motion, I have to meet this kind of a situation - one voice against so many others. And yet I agreed. I think I am giving in to their benefit. In fact, there is more benefit to the Government by giving in than it benefits me.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am really grateful that he brought it up because we could have easily left it to him to move an Adjournment motion. He speaks for 20 minutes. We speak for 10 minutes. He does not have the right of reply. If we had wanted to discuss this without any intervention by him, I would have made a lengthy Ministerial Statement on which he could not discuss but only ask questions. We knew he was interested in debating, so and we said, "Are you serious about this? Why don't you move a motion where you can speak and you can have a full hour to reply?" As it turned out, where under an Adjournment motion he can speak for only 20 minutes, he spoke for one full hour, as we recall it this morning and now I take it he can speak for another full hour. So where is the repression?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I cannot see the logic of the Minister when he said from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. The Government side is only given half the time. But now, as I recorded it, there are already 14 speakers. So you have multiplied your proportion ---

An hon. Member: Freedom of speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: --- to so many times. But you did not know that I was going to move this motion until the last minute and I accommodated you, not you accommodate me. So it is to your benefit, not really to my benefit even if I have the two hours. Admittedly I have two hours, but proportionately the Government would have more time to give its views and yet I sportingly allowed it.

I think the more important question is - the Minister has not touched on this - what sort of Singapore do we really want? This is an important question. We want, of course, the release of the 15 on humanitarian grounds. I think their families and friends do suffer. As I have already given my reasons, I do not want to repeat them. They should be released and yet I see that the Government is not complying. I hope they will change their mind soon.

The Government says they have got a vision for Singapore. What kind of vision? How can people of Singapore believe the Government when you say you want to have a vision and you want to have high standards of living? Can we really achieve such a vision? I really do not think so. Every now and then there will be arrests under your system. On the average, maybe every 10 years, there will be arrests. Every 10 years, it occurs. Why? Because you are not establishing a democratic society. As you say, there will be rapists. There will be murderers. There will be this kind of people coming forward. So what do you do? You have to immunize the society so that they can come and have different opinions and yet it would not shake the fundamentals of society. You can educate them, as I have advocated, on democracy. Teach our school children what this system is all about. What are the dangers? Why do we not allow this Communist and Marxist to come forward? You teach them. The difference between a Marxist society and our society is freedom. If you have got no freedom, there is no difference between the two societies. Over in the Communist bloc, you can go for your holidays to the Crimea, to the Black Sea, but you cannot go across the border to America for holidays. They say they have high standards of living. They have got all their culture and all the benefits. But the basic difference is freedom.

If we want to have a fairer system, then we should educate our school children. It is just like when our children are young, they have to go for immunization. Diseases will always be there. But how do you prevent such diseases from attacking our children? It is to immunize them. Similarly, if we have built up a structure, a Singapore structure that is strong enough, it cannot be shaken. These people can come and you do not worry. But as it is, now the Government seems to have a monopoly of whatever is good for the country. Other people do not play a part. When the time comes, the people just vote. The media is controlled by you. The press is controlled by you. You can force any opinion on the people of Singapore. As we see now, what is the thing that is going on in our TV? You and I know. Pushing hard for BG Lee. Every now and then, we turn on the radio, it is the son of the Prime Minister. What is it all about? We know. You know and I know. You do not have to tell the people of Singapore. It is just pushing him to the forefront. Why are there no other people coming forward and be given equal time to have their say?

Mr Chandra Das: Do they have something sensible to say?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, they have. Are you saying that Singaporeans have got nothing sensible to say? They have.

As I look at this amendment, if the House approves of it, then in fact you will be varying the detention orders. The detention orders are one year for the 14 and two years for Vincent Cheng. If you agree and approve this amendment, as it stands, then you would be varying the detention orders, as I said. The important part of this amendment says:

'supports the prompt action of the Government in arresting those involved in the Marxist conspiracy and supports the Government's intention to release them as soon as they are rehabilitated ...'.

This is one arm. The other arm is:

'and are unlikely to resume their subversive activities.'

These two arms are very subjective. These two can go beyond the one year and two years because how are you going to determine that they are rehabilitated? This is a very subjective matter. Some of you say they should not be allowed because they have confessed. But you forgot that the more important point is not what they say. You have already destroyed their credibility. They cannot go back to their old ways again. You have destroyed their network. You have destroyed their objectives. That is more important. It is not what they have said over TV. More important is that you have established a situation where they no longer can go back to their old ways. I think that is the criteria. Otherwise, how can you say that they are rehabilitated? How do you prove that? I cannot see how you can prove it. They can subject themselves to your questions and answers every day and they are all intelligent people. Whatever you ask them they can give you the answers that you want. And how are you going to prove that they are rehabilitated? It is impossible to prove because it is subjective.

The danger is that, for your own political reasons, they may be detained longer than the detention order, maybe 1(r) years, maybe two years, because you say they are still not rehabilitated. So you are varying the original detention order which is only for one year. Of course, the Minister has powers to extend the detention order. But I think the present detention order, as it stands, is one year for 14 persons and two years for one person.

The other arm is "unlikely to resume their subversive activities." Again, this is very subjective. How are you going to prove they are unlikely to resume their subversive activities? As far as we know now, as it stands, they can no longer go back to their subversive activities. How are they going back? Take Vincent Cheng. He goes back and he wants to start some Marxist group again. Do you think he can get recruits? He has already confessed in public. His credibility has been shattered. Again, this is subjective. The authorities can always say that they are likely to go back to their subversive activities and then you can prolong their detention order for another six months or for another year or whatever. My point is that if you agree with this amendment, you are materially altering the detention order and I do not think that is right. I have to point this out to the House.

The other point is the Member for Punggol. He asked me what is my motive for bringing this matter up. You know my motive. I have got no subversive motives. You can read my mind like a book. I am an open person. I am an Opposition Member. If it were not for me, there will be no public forum for these 15 persons arrested. You tell me what other forum can be aired on the detention of these 15. You name me one. What other forums? Who are the people who can bring this matter up? You are not going to bring them to court. You are not going to bring them in front of a ---

Mr Ng Kah Ting rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, are you giving way?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right, Mr Ng, you have the Floor.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir asks, where is the forum? This is the forum.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Correct.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: He should take note of what I said earlier on. We could have killed the motion but we did not so as to enable this Parliament to discuss the matter openly before the people of Singapore, the press and TV. This is the forum.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Member for Punggol, my, my! You have your think-tank and you have weighed carefully whether to allow this motion or not. Please, this is not done out of goodwill for me. I dare you to kill this motion. The repercussions will be adverse against this Government. Think of the hue and cry by the international press which will say, "Member of the Opposition tried to move a motion on the detention and his motion was not allowed because there was no seconder." Tremendous damage will be done to this Government.

Some hon. Members: No!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, it will. I do not take the PAP to be a bunch of naive people. They know exactly what they are doing, please. I agreed with you. That is the reason why you allowed the motion. You do not want to kill it because it will be adverse to your interest, not to my interest.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: We allow you to have your say.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Because it is to your benefit, not to my benefit.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Let the people be the judge.

Mr Chiam See Tong: As I was saying, my motive is just for these 15 persons. As far as I can see, there is not one good reason why they should be detained for another day. They are no security threat to Singapore at all. As far as I can see, 14 of you have risen to speak and none of you have convinced me. You said that they are people who advocate bloodshed, chaos, violence and riots. But where is the evidence?

This is the article by Santa Maria which the Member for Punggol, I believe, has quoted. If he has read carefully, I think the important part is the questions which were put to Vincent Cheng:

'Question: Do you think Tan Wah Piow would have stopped it if he'd brought it to a peaceful revolution that could not bring about an overthrow? Do you think he would have stopped at that?

Answer: I think he would proceed further... maybe I am making conjectures. But I would think that he would be a person to achieve his aim to overthrow the Government.

Question: Through violent means?

Answer: Yes, if peaceful means don't work out.'

These questions were put to Vincent Cheng. His replies are all hearsay. It is not of his own evidence. He is thinking what Tan Wah Piow would be doing, possibly he would do, possibly he would do whatever thing. It is not the answer of Vincent Cheng. And we are talking of Vincent Cheng who has been arrested.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: On a point of clarification, Sir, if he will give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, Mr Ng is asking for a point of clarification. Are you giving way?

Mr Chiam See Tong: "Maybe I am making conjectures." That is all he is doing, making conjectures.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you give way to Mr Ng?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I did not quote it from there. I have read it. It was quoted by my friend and colleague, the Member for Ayer Rajah. Read the specific part. Let the Member for Potong Pasir read the specific part that was read out by my good friend, the Member for Ayer Rajah.

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is the important part which I think is of relevance - "Maybe I am making conjectures." That is all. He does not know it personally. He has got no authority himself or he himself would be involved in violence. There is no evidence whatsoever. He is thinking: Yes, maybe Tan Wah Piow would want violence. In a court of law this would be thrown out, outright. There is no evidence at all from the person whom you have detained. If you can produce evidence to say that these 15 people would be marching the streets and rioting and, like the other Bersilat chaps, with their parangs, that is a completely different matter. They have not even thrown a stone.

We have all this talk of past history, that we have got riots in the past. It is very true we had all these riots in the past, but we still survive all these riots. But the more important point is that we are not living in those periods. There are very big changes in our society. I think the Government knows that. Even a period of 10 years, we find there are two worlds apart. In fact, I am noticing it myself that when I talk to youngsters, my thinking and their thinking are already different because they are of a newer generation. They want to go on ahead. They want to create things for themselves. But I am afraid this Government is still sticking to their old past.

The Member for Punggol has brought up many important points. He asked me whom am I championing? Whose side I am on? When I come before the House, I do not have any ulterior motives. I am not championing for the 15. Somebody must speak up for them. In the whole of Singapore, 2.6 million people, who will speak up for these 15? Somebody has to do the job. It is a necessary job. And I have been placed in a position where I have the opportunity to do it and I am doing it. That is all to it. And the Member for Punggol seems to want to put and imply a sinister motive to me. I have got no sinister motive in bringing this up.

Mr Chandra Das: Political mileage.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, it does not really matter to me whether there is political mileage or not. As far as the PAP is concerned, everything is politics to them. I think the detention is politics, nothing to do with the security of Singapore. And I do not think the way so many speakers have gone on - they speak in such abstract terms of the world and of historical context and the like - you tend to forget that we are talking of 15 Singaporeans. The whole motion is that these 15 Singaporeans should be released. If you cannot give a valid reason why they should be detained a day further, then they should be released at all costs.

Mr Chandra Das: At all costs?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, if there is no security reason for doing so. There are a lot of implications that many people think that these people want to drag the Church against the State but there is really no evidence of that.

This question of torture. They said that the Minister has come out and said that there is no torture. But I think he has not clarified whether there is continuous interrogation. I wish he would clarify this point because in the report that I read in which he has mentioned, I believe it is Ng Bee Leng. In fact, she had suffered 12 hours of continuous interrogation. I wish he would come out and say whether that was true or not.

I do not think it is my duty to answer every point that has been brought up. There are so many points which are brought up that are completely untrue. The Member for Clementi said that Government has irrefutable proof. But he has not bothered to name any of those proofs to prove the case, whereas I have brought forward ample evidence that there is no case against these 15 at all.

Some hon. Members: What evidence?

Mr Chiam See Tong: You have not been listening obviously. Again and again, speaker after speaker implies that these 15 will bring disorder, bloodshed and violence to Singapore. And again many have said that, well, because they are mild looking. First Deputy Speaker has even brought up examples ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, I have not said anything.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is my mistake. The First Deputy Prime Minister has brought up the person of Ieng Sary. Well, I do not know how he can compare Ieng Sary with these 15 who are arrested. Ieng Sary has got a long record with his other colleagues of mass murder. Where is the record of these 15? There is no record of them ---

An hon. Member: Looks.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I know. But the thing is that you are saying that they look harmless. The point is that you say you must not allow the looks to deceive you. But these people are people whom we know. And I think it is absurd to say that people would be going with tattoo marks on their heads to tell what they are.

At this point I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to say whether or not these people would be released soon. I think this is the main interest to their parents and friends. Or are they going to be detained for the full year? If the Government feels that these people are really not as what they are trying to make it out to be, I think they should be released. And as in the war, they say, "We will be back home for Christmas." I hope these people can be released in time not for Christmas, but to celebrate National Day.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Deputy Speaker, my name was mentioned by my colleague, the Member for Punggol. Yes, I did quote the passage by Santa Maria. But the Member for Potong Pasir quoted the wrong passage. If he wants to know, I am prepared to tell him which passage I quoted. But I do not think he will be listening, so I will not be bothered.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, recounted how he agreed to move this motion. But let him not go away with the impression that we tried to trap him into this situation. That is definitely not the case. When I was told that he wanted to move a motion for the adjournment - I think it was the 23rd before the closing date of 25th - we thought that this is a very important subject. And since he has passed the closing date for moving a private member's motion on the 18th, we thought that perhaps we can find a way to help him raise this important subject and allow a full debate of the subject before this House. If not, he would only have 20 minutes. Of course, the Minister has 10 minutes, but the Minister can also make a Ministerial statement to counter all those points that he wants to raise. But if he just have 20 minutes, he would not be able to make full use of the one hour that he took when he first started and another 30 - 40 minutes before he sat down to express his views. So he was given the full opportunity to say all that he wanted to say on behalf of these 15 individuals who are detained.

Certainly, it is not true that he is the only champion of these 15 people. Among many PAP MPs, they also asked and expressed the same concern and they also have made their views known at various occasions. And this subject was also fully discussed at one of our PAP Youth Wing's seminars on one weekend at Meridien Hotel. So it is not he alone that is concerned about this issue. And it is because this issue is so important that we decided and he cooperated, many thanks to him, that we are able to fully debate the subject.

When he asks that whether the PAP has a vision for the people and if it has, then should it have the ISA to suppress or detain people unnecessarily? Of course, the PAP has a vision. And for that reason we are in power for the last 28 years. Without that kind of vision, if we just move from election to election, from year to year, or being pushed from pillar to post by all kinds of unpopular issues, we would not be here that long. We will continue to remain here for a long time because we have a vision. Our vision, of course, is that we must have a stable society that stresses on economic growth, that will provide job opportunities for our people, freedom for them to do what they want to satisfy themselves, to fulfill themselves in materialistic and non-materialistic ways. But the underpinning of this freedom to do all these things is that we must be free from threats, both internally and externally. And one of these instruments that will allow us to continue to live freely is the Internal Security Act. We have found it necessary to use it on this occasion to nip the problem in the bud. Of course, the Member for Potong Pasir would have us release or not detain any of such people at all costs, as he said. But I do not think Singaporeans will agree that we should allow a security situation to threaten us until we are overwhelmed, until we are consumed by riots and havoc. We want to continue to live peacefully.

The amendment moved by the Member for Clementi is not a variation of the detention order of the Minister. Definitely not. The detention order says that Vincent Cheng would be detained for two years; the other 14 for one year. The order can be extended if the Government is not satisfied that they have been rehabilitated. On the other hand, they can be released as soon as the Government is satisfied that they are rehabilitated. So there is no variation to the detention order. None at all.

He says he has not seen a shred of evidence and that what Vincent Cheng said was only conjecture. Not quite! If he heard Vincent Cheng on television or if he read what was published about what Vincent Cheng said on television he will find the evidence. These are Vincent Cheng's words:

'I would foresee that the building up of pressure groups would develop to a stage where they would come into open confrontation with the Government.

This confrontation with the Government would start off with peaceful protests, public mass petitions, which could lead further to more mass events like mass rallies, mass demonstrations, strikes, where more people are mobilised. And leading to public disorder and maybe even rioting, bloodshed and violence.'

These are Vincent Cheng's own words. Nobody put them in his mouth. Nobody forced him to say this. He is at liberty not to say this. But he spoke, and he spoke his mind.

The Member asked the Minister to confirm the continuous interrogation. But the Minister has answered the question. He was not listening. The Minister said that there was a doctor on standby to make sure that the person was fit to be interrogated.

He cannot see the comparison between Ieng Sary and these 15 people. Well, there is an idiom which says, "Don't judge a book by its cover." The reason why the First DPM used the example of Ieng Sary is that he is such a nice gentleman in the international arena when he attends meetings. Nobody could suspect or know that he and his people, the clique of Pol Pot, committed genocide. If you look at Chin Peng, nobody would know that he is the head of the CPM. So do not judge people just by their looks. And by knowing just one person alone, it is not enough to generalize.

Let me just reiterate the point that the Government does have a vision and this amendment is not a variation of the Minister's detention order.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, rather than the Whip, I think I am responsible for the sitting today when I supported the motion of the Member for Potong Pasir. Actually, the point is that this morning when he stood up to move his motion and he was allowed to speak, I could detect that there was great pleasure in his opening remarks. He thanked the House for everybody kindly coming here this morning. In fact, he thanked me for my reluctant support of his motion. And having gone through this whole debate now, he says it is to our advantage to have this debate. He surely knew that when he moved the motion, had it gone through, everyone will be allowed to speak. Every Member in this House will be speaking against his motion. That being the case, it seems that when the debate has turned against him, he has come round to say that it is to our advantage and not to his advantage.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put, and agreed to.

Question on the Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the prompt action of the Government in arresting those involved in the Marxist conspiracy and supports the Government's intention to release them as soon as they are rehabilitated and are unlikely to resume their subversive activities.