MARXIST CONSPIRACY AND VULNERABILITY OF SINGAPORE (New developments)

4.35 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a motion on New developments following the detention of the 15 alleged Marxist plotters and the vulnerability of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the last time this House debated on the detention of Vincent Cheng and 14 of his friends on 29th July, I note that there are now new developments arising from those detentions. I am referring to the Straits Times, 21st August 1987 issue, reporting on the 55 US Congressmen's letter of protest sent to the Singapore Government concerning the 15 detained. I have been told that there was such a letter of protest and that the Straits Times report of that letter is accurate. I have not seen to date the reply or response made by the Singapore Government to that protest letter. But I am sure the Minister will perhaps clarify on that point whether or not the Singapore Government has already sent a reply.

In my mind that newspaper report was significant. Firstly, the Chairman of the US House of Representatives, Mr Dante Fascell, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, saw fit to pen his name in that letter. As you all surely know, the Foreign Affairs Committee is one of the more prestigious Standing Congressional Committees of the House of Representatives and one of its subjects that it has purview is US relations with other governments. I suppose that includes relations with the Singapore Government. Secondly, that there should be more US Congressmen who would want to protest against the Singapore Government over the detention. I believe there were already six US Congressmen previously who had written to the Singapore Government on this issue. Thirdly, the 55 Congressmen who had protested to the Singapore Government are clearly not convinced that the 15 detained are Communists or Marxists or are out to subvert the existing social and political system of Singapore. The Government could easily brush off the 600-odd other protest letters sent from England, Australia and New Zealand, by saying that the writers of those letters were fellow Marxists having similar philosopy or aims and therefore they had good reasons to protest against the arrest and detention of the 15 alleged Marxist plotters. But such allegations cannot be made of the 55 US Congressmen. Nobody would dare say that they are Marxist sympathisers. So why do they take the trouble on their own to protest against the Singapore Government over the 15 who were detained and in custody? It is obvious that they do not believe the explanations given by the Government for the detentions and, as I said, they are not convinced that the 15 detained are Marxists.

I for one am not convinced that Vincent Cheng and 14 of his friends are really Communists or Marxists who want to overthrow Singapore by violent means. The question is: why should we be bothered with this new development, that is, the protest from these 55 US legislators? Those 55 American law makers, both Democrats and Republicans, have urged the Singapore Government to either try the 15 detained promptly or release them. There is an urgency in their call. They have put a time limit to their call for the 15 detained to be tried. They have not only urged the Singapore Government to try the 15 detained but to try them promptly. I do not think that there is a threat on their part. I do not think that there is an implied either/or situation. It is not a case of either you try them or we will have a follow-up action. I do not think that is the situation at all. It is just the word "promptly" used to show their concern for the 15 who have been incarcerated. They are also probably so convinced that the 15 detained are not Marxists and have not broken the law. If they thought that the 15 detained had broken the law, then the Singapore Government would have put them on trial. I think we should be concerned that there is such a protest from so many US law makers who are influential people, by virtue of the office they hold.

The Singapore Government has said more than once that Singapore is vulnerable and I agree that Singapore is vulnerable. But the Singapore Government should not concentrate on Singapore's vulnerability only from the point of view of internal threats. Singapore's vulnerability can equally be affected by adverse international public opinion. We all know South Africa has a bad international public image. Whenever the name of South Africa is mentioned, straightaway we think of racial exploitation and Apartheid. These connections are straightaway brought to our mind. We think of South Africa, we think of Apartheid. Of course, Singapore will never sink so low down the scale as South Africa in international public opinion. But we need not put ourselves in a position where we will attract bad international press or bad international public opinion in relation to our treatment of the human rights issue. We may not like it. But the 15 detained are treated by people abroad as a human rights issue. The detainees are viewed as mere dissenters who opposed the ruling Party because the Singapore Government's case claiming that they are Marxist subversives are not believed. I say that Singapore should not and never be allowed to be labelled abroad as a country which is clean, green and economically advanced, but its Government represssive. I think that this kind of an international image should never be allowed to be imprinted in the international public opinion and the public press abroad. If that happens, then it will need plenty of effort on Singapore's part to erase that kind of an unflattering international image.

I have spoken earlier on about the pledge whereby the pledge is for us to build a democratic society. Let us not just mouth the words of the pledge but let us put the words of the pledge into practice. Arresting our own citizens and detaining them without trial is definitely not democratic. Whichever way we look at it, it is not democratic. So I would also urge the Government, like the 55 US Congressmen, either to try or release the 15 detained.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir can be viewed as raising two questions. One is a specific question as to what do we do with criticisms and protests that we have received on these arrests; and the other is a broader question as to who makes and takes decisions on the law, order and security issues of Singapore - we, the Singaporeans and the elected Government, or foreigners?

The Member for Potong Pasir seems surprised that there are protests from various quarters. He should not be. We knew, before we took the decision to arrest those involved in the conspiracy, that there will be criticisms and that there will be protests from abroad. The First Deputy Prime Minister and I have said so in this House. We said that one of the factors which we took into account in the decision-making process was that there will be criticisms and protests both within and outside Singapore. We knew that. How did we know that? Because each time in the past whenever we used the ISA, there were criticisms and protests. But this time we knew that there would be more protests than on previous occasions because, first, those involved in this conspiracy had made use of church organizations and church publications, and that related and affiliated religious organizations abroad who did not have all the facts would be puzzled and were bound to write in and express righteous indignation. Secondly, because so many of them are graduates, professionals, having studied abroad, we knew that they had connections with their former universities, alumni, and this also would cause protests.

As we had informed the House, in the decision-making process we had to consider the question: should we refrain from acting on a security measure because of the likelihood of protests and criticisms? Or do we, despite the anticipated protests, decide to move? The former alternative, of course, is a convenient and expedient option. It avoids more work. It lessens controversy. But we knew that this would not be right. If the decision, after weighing all the pros and cons, was that it was necessary on national security grounds, then we should move to protect our security and nip the conspiracy in the bud. To do otherwise would mean that we are taking chances with the lives of Singaporeans and the future of our stability and security.

Now that we have acted against them and the anticipated protests have come, what should we do and what do we do? It depends, of course, on who is it who criticized us and what are his intentions. I have previously classified at least four groups of persons who would criticize us. First, those who are well-intentioned but do not know our situation. Because of the culture and traditions, they cannot understand preventive detention. Secondly, there are groups like Amnesty International which opposed preventive detention per se and therefore they condemn and only later ascertain the facts. Thirdly, the organizations which are related to the organizations which were involved here - Justice of Peace Commissions established elsewhere and they feel obliged to protest. Fourthly, groups and organizations which have vested interest and have an axe to grind and clearly mischievous. I spoke at length on this when I answered the question from the Member for Fengshan on a previous occasion about protests by groups in Malaysia.

Congressmen have protested. We have ourselves made public the first Congressional letter and our reply which was comprehensive. We consider them as belonging to the first group. They are well-intentioned and we treat them accordingly. Hence we give a comprehensive reply to that letter and all other letters that follow subsequently. We explain to them why we are different from the United States. Why is it that, because of past Communist and communalist problems, we have to resort to measures to suit our circumstances and why preventive detention, which was introduced by the British, has still relevance today because the problems have not disappeared.

For those in the United States, preventive detention and the Internal Security Act is not acceptable because in the context of their norms, their legal traditions which have evolved over more than 200 years, their solutions are different. They are larger. They are more well established and for them a Marxist conspiracy, subversion, probably they can handle it without the existence of their nation being in jeopardy.

But what about Singapore? Instead of just relying on the Minister's view, let me quote to the Member for Potong Pasir the views of the late Prof. Tilman who was quoted by the Prime Minister. But let me quote a different passage. He has studied and worked here for many years. He was an American scholar and this is what he said:

'Singapore more than most states needs international political and economic stability and predictability if it is to prosper or even survive. Larger nations may withdraw to within themselves in troubled times but a small densely populated island offers little refuge from a major storm. Disruptive or subversive actions can destroy Singapore's credibility as a safe haven... In brief, Singapore is highly vulnerable to forces over which it has only limited controland it faces dilemmas that larger states can avoid or minimize.'

Sir, in the previous debate, when the First Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the Member for Potong Pasir was not against the ISA, he did not rebut the First Deputy Prime Minister. Congressmen have taken a position which is against preventive detention. I would expect him, as a loyal Singaporean, to speak as a Singaporean. Why does he not take umbrage over what all these foreign critics from Malaysia and elsewhere do which amounts to interference in our internal affairs? Why give more credence to criticisms abroad than the explanations given by the Government? If we take his approach and do what all the foreign critics would ask us to do, will it do any good for Singapore, our future, stability and security? Will it be a responsible act? Will it not encourage more interference from various quarters in our internal affairs? What happens the next time we have another security problem, another Silat group? Do we consult ALIRAN, INSAN, Amnesty International? Ask them first whether they object, whether they protest, and then only act?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the issue is one of preventive detention. That is how the criticism has been presented. In the ultimate analysis, the key issue is this: who decides the destiny of Singapore and Singaporeans? It must be Singaporeans and the elected Government. Surely the Member for Potong Pasir cannot seriously suggest that our security decisions on arrests and release must be made on criteria other than what is best for our national interest. Surely he cannot suggest that we adopt new criterion depending on whether it pleases or annoys others outside Singapore. If we adopt that criterion, Sir, it will please foreign critics. It will please others elsewhere who want to poke noses into our affairs. But it will not solve our problems and if we take that approach, ie, the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir, it will be abdicating our responsibility to decide our own affairs without interference from outside quarters.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the time, I would not get into the other areas he touched on concerning the release of the detainees, the grounds for the detention, because these were fully covered in the previous debate on 29th July.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Have you responded to the letter?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question from the Member for Potong Pasir is whether we have received the letter from the Congressmen and the answer is yes, and a reply will be prepared. But the reply will be based on the points which have already been covered in the first Congressional letter's reply because that was the comprehensive statement of the Singapore Government's position and many of the signatories to the letter he refers to also included the same signatories to the first Congressional letter.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said, in the ultimate analysis, what is at issue is we are different. We are not the United States. Our problems which affect our vulnerability and stability are different from the United States and therefore when critics, based on their perspectives, their experience and their cultures and traditions, pass views and judgments on our solutions, far from attempting to conclude that we are wrong, we should attempt to explain to them as best as we can why is it that we are different, our problems are special, our circumstances unique and therefore we must be allowed to devise solutions for our security problems. Because if we are not allowed to do that and when Singapore goes down the drain, I think none of us has any doubts that few of these foreign critics will be able to come to our help, and it may be too late even if they want to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the point about the foreign criticisms is this. We must be able to distinguish the type of criticisms. At the last sitting, I mentioned to the House that whether the critic is well inten- tioned or not is important. There are organizations which have mischievous intent, which derive pleasure from seeing Singapore in difficulties. The Member for Potong Pasir has seen recent examples, in the past year or so, when the slightest incident or event in Singapore sparks off large numbers of protests on matters which do not affect any other country. We must also distinguish critics who have already taken a pre-determined position. Amnesty International takes a pre-determined position - opposing preventive detention. So if we take the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir - we are worried about image and therefore refrain from taking action necessary. Amnesty International also opposes the death penalty. Whenever a drug trafficker is executed, I get letters from Amnesty International.

Following the logic of the Member for Potong Pasir, if we take care of this problem of the ISA arrests, what should we do when Amnesty International and legislators the world over who disagree with the death penalty protest? Should we then get rid of the death penalty for drug traffickers?

Then, since preventive detention per se is opposed, what do we do when legislators the world over oppose our criminal law detention which has helped to make our streets safe and secure from gangsters, rapists and other big-time criminals?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Let's talk about the 15 detained.

Prof. Jayakumar: The issue is still that of preventive detention. Law makers who oppose the ISA because they are against preventive detention per se must logically also oppose preventive detention for criminals. It is also detention without trial. The Member for Potong Pasir will come back to this House when next we have protests on that kind of preventive detention and say, "Look, our image is affected. Release all the criminal law detainees." Is he a legislator from another country? Or is he a Member of Parliament of Singapore? So whether it is the Internal Security Act or the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act, we have had to devise our own solutions for our circumstances. That is how we have managed to contain our law and order problems. And we are not apologetic for having preventive detention or having the Internal Security Act. It is not this Government which introduced it out of thin air. It was introduced by the British. The British introduced preventive detention because they knew that there was no other way that the problems of Communist subversion, and racial and religious extremism can be contained. And we did not do away with preventive detention because the problems still exist and continue.

Our task, therefore, when faced with criticisms, whether it be from the United States or elsewhere, is to explain to them, get them to understand that not all coun- tries are alike, not all problems in all countries are the same and that there must be differences in meeting different problems.

Finally, we must ask ourselves what is the consequence if we did not take the approach of having as our criterion the overriding national interest of Singapore, the future of Singaporeans, our stability and vulnerability.

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

Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.