ACTION UNDER INTERNAL SECURITY ACT

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That this House -

(a) supports the firm action of the Government to prevent our country from being subverted whether by Marxists, communists, western powers or other foreign interest groups,

(b) deplores, in view of recent disclosures, all foreign interference, particularly that of some United States' officials, in our domestic affairs,

(c) calls upon the Government to be vigilant to all such groups and stop them from interfering in our domestic affairs, and

(d) endorses the Government's detention, under the Internal Security Act, of the people involved in the attempt to subvert Singapore."

Sir, recently, incidents of Marxist intrigue groups and foreign forces attempting to interfere in our domestic affairs have, one after the other, been exposed. This shows that various kinds of subversive forces, left or right, internal or external, are once more on the move and trying to destroy our political stability and internal security. These forces represent different political ideologies, different groups and interests. But they all harbour undisclosed political objectives. What pains one's heart is the fact that in the face of such diverse kinds of external subversive threats, there could even be some Singaporeans willing to be runners for foreign interests, to the extent of treacherously collaborating with them in total disregard for our national interests. Fortunately, the Government took speedy and decisive actions, exposing the intrigues, arresting the subversive elements, stalling black operations from spreading further and preventing internal security and national interests from being damaged. All this should get the whole-hearted support of all our citizens.

Sir, why have these subversive forces of various kinds and hues suddenly become active in the past two years? This calls for our study. I believe there are three reasons. The first, of course, is that they believe that the general election is round the corner. This is one chance in four or five years for them. The second reason is that the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, may announce his retirement on reaching the age of 65 by the end of this year. The third reason is that they know that the political leadership of Singapore is presently at an important juncture of transition. The transition stage is usually a delicate stage. Therefore, the intriguers and subversive elements have come out in full force prospecting for opportunities and loopholes to cause unrest, create disturbances, fish in troubled waters, foster influence or lend support to puppets to serve their future interests.

With the appearance of the Marxist intrigue groups, we know that the communist party and the leftist forces have not given up their attempt to seize political power through force and violence, in spite of the fact that the present socio -economic conditions are not in their favour. This group of schemers have connections with Tan Wah Piow who has connections with Malayan communist leaders. This is an indisputable fact.

Some partakers of the intrigue might have really been made use of without being aware of it. However, it is manifestly clear that the activities of the schemers endanger national security. They do not use bullets or arms. But if their united front work of infiltration of churches and student organizations, etc, succeeds, great damage would have been done to our social fabric. People would not doubt that the activities of this scheme might bring about possible danger. What the people doubt is whether this group of schemers really have any political belief or principle or whether they are entirely devoid of any principle, but can be easily manipulated and made use of by others and are so malleable as to be easily swayed in their ways. When in detention they spoke in one way, after their release and rearrest they spoke in different ways, retracting and reasserting on different occasions. If this kind of people take hold of the reins of government, can they contribute any good to our country? If you say it is the handling of the ISD that has produced this result, how is it that there is somebody who has been in detention for over 20 years and yet remains very intransigent?

Sir, however, in the present circumstances, the focus of attention of our people has been transferred from the marxist intriguers to the question of interference by foreign powers in our domestic affairs. We have seen from Government exposures, how western powers, particularly the USA, make use of Singaporeans to carry out subversion and to interfere in our domestic affairs, attempting to sway the course of our political development. This, once again, reminds us that the foreign powers are forever interested in and fixing their eyes on this little island of ours for its geopolitical and strategic value. Therefore, whatever it is, the Government must tighten its vigilance. At the same time the people must also always be on the alert to avoid being made use of by any foreigners.

The recent instance of some US Government officials trying to interfere in our domestic affairs has aroused strong anger in our people against their demeaning behaviour. Beginning with Patrick Seong instigating some former detainees to issue a joint statement to the exposure of a grand scheme of collusion between some local Opposition elements and some Americans, the whole course is like the accidental discovery of white ant leading to a big termite nest buried underground. The whole intrigue of the Americans is to buy over and cultivate some professionals who are opposed to the Government and disgruntled with the present conditions, and help them enter Parliament. If this scheme had not been discovered in time, there might appear in Parliament a group of puppets subservient to and controlled by the foreigners. Outwardly, they may be playing the role of the Opposition, displaying the ploy of support for human rights and freedom while, in fact, serving foreign interests. How dangerous it is. Can we allow such incidents to happen?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what needs our study is: what is the purpose of the Americans in attempting to interfere in our domestic affairs? What are their objectives? Obviously, to help set up an Opposition in Parliament is not their ultimate objective but is only a means, a facade. I think the real objectives are political, military and strategic. However, whatever they may be, their undercover actions will be damaging to our political stability, damaging our internal security and will be damaging our independence and our sovereignty. Is it a small matter? Can we tolerate it? If a girl in a bus is being molested by a sex maniac, if the girl does not shout out but keeps quiet, then the molester will go a step further to take more advantage of her. Therefore it is necessary for one to shout and get the molester arrested with the help of others in the bus. Therefore, as regards the mean tactic of the Americans, we must loudly condemn it in unison and tell them in no uncertain terms to lay off.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, I think the Member is treading on very dangerous grounds. To say that the Americans are attempting not really to set up an Opposition presence in Singapore but to destabilize Singapore and cause damage and political instability, I think there is no evidence to that. The Americans are a friendly nation.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, will you listen to me! You will be given an opportunity to have your say afterwards. So allow Mr Goh to carry on, please. Will you please sit down? In time, you will have your say.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason is very simple. If we do not stop such interfering and subversive activities, then the result will be that our national interests and security will be damaged and our sovereignty and stability will be affected. Can't the Member for Potong Pasir not understand that?

In international relationship, big countries, particularly super powers interferring in small countries is a fact in international life. So as a small country, we should prevent such interference from having its way. If we cannot do that, then we will be inviting endless trouble. We can just look around at those small countries that have been interfered with by bigger powers, say, some countries interfered with by the United States, such as South Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Phillippines, Nicaragua, etc. Is there not one of such countries being left with endless troubles? Sir, the incident of Hendrickson has reminded us that even a friendly big power would also interfere in our internal affairs, not to mention about those unfriendly nations towards us. From history we can know that many small countries, usually because of internal disturbances, disorder and social and political instability, they have given the opportunity for bigger countries to interfere in their internal affairs, against which they were too weak to resist.

In recent years, internally we have been united and there has been political stability. Therefore bigger powers could not have the opportunity to lay hands on us. But now the Hendrickson incident has shown that there is a small group of opportunists who for their own purposes have gone to the extent of selling out national interest. They even colluded with and brought the wolves into our rooms, so to speak. This is what we should guard against with vigilance. The Americans tried to manipulate Singapore's politics, this is not the first time. The tactic used this time calls for our attention. It is an under-cover tactic, using the mass media, press and the so-called human rights organizations and such like groups to spread their propaganda ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: There is already an American announcement that they do not officially manipulate Singapore's politics. Now he is touching on this point.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): The Americans can defend themselves.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not defending the Americans. But there is already an official announcement to that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, will you please allow Mr Goh to carry on? You can argue about that later on in your speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But he cannot go on uttering untruths in Parliament. The Americans have already said that their government officially is not interfering in Singapore's politics. Now he comes out and says ---

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Chiam is completely out of order in interjecting in this manner. He has his chance to speak. He will speak afterwards.

Mr Speaker: Carry on, Mr Goh.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, thank you. I am very disap- pointed that the Member for Potong Pasir seems to be so very anxious to speak on behalf of somebody else. Anyway, he will have his opportunity. So he need not be so very anxious.

Just now I was saying that the foreigners have certain ulterior motives. But in order to cover up their objections they put up a facade, making use of the media of information such as press and human rights organizations and so on to spread their propaganda and to cover up their activities aiming at damaging the Government's image, making it appear as dictatorial, suppressing public opinion, taking actions against human rights, suppressing innocent citizens, suppressing the opposition parties and freedom of speeches and so on. All these are tactics of covering-up and a kind of psychological warfare. The purpose is to destroy Singaporeans' psychological defence in order to create doubts in their minds against the Government, hence reducing its support and to drive a divisive wedge between the people and the Government so as to enhence their chances of planting some opposition candidates in the Parliament favourable to their interest. How sinister are their designs! But, I believe the people of Singapore are not so stupid as to fall into the trap. Their eyes are bright and discerning. We all know that a strong and judicious Government has been the main factor in the stable development of our country in the past years.

Following the development of recent events and with the mask of each individual being taken down one by one, now we can see the tail of the fox appearing. We can now clearly see the true looks of the schemers, the opportunists and the subversive elements. For this, we should give credit to the Internal Security Department and also should we give credit to the Internal Security Act which such subversive elements want so very much to scrap. If Patrick Seong, Francis Seow and the others have not been detained under the Internal Security Act and being investigated, we might not have been able to find out in time the underground termite heap. And if we had not destroyed the termites in time, then the foundation of our social security might have been eaten through and our house may collapse. The ISA has proved to be the most effective weapon against subversive activities. So, it is not strange for such elements to want to get rid of ISA, which is a stumbling block to them. The Marxist-intrigue group and the Hendrickson incident have shown that in spite of foreign human rights organizations and foreign mass media that are against us and had been shouting and creating such a hullaballoo, saying "the wolf has come", however the Internal Security Act still remains an indispensable factor in ensuring our internal security. It is a must in maintaining our internal security. On the contrary, we have seen that those engaging in subversive activities even though appearing like sheep and shouting "wolf" all day long are all wolves in sheep's skin. Undeniably the Internal Security Act is a two-edged sword. If the person in charge of it is not a proper one, abuse of the Act may happen. However, we cannot do away with the ISA just because there is any probability that the Act can be abused. The correct safeguard against the probability of abuse is the setting up of a measure and mechanism to ensure this safeguard. There is in existence such a mechanism, ie. a Committee of Appeal with a Judge as its Chairman. This is a helpful insurance. However, in the final analysis the best guarantee is a good and judicious elected Government that is true and faithful to the country and to the people, working for national interest.

The achievements of Singapore today and the good living standard enjoyed by Singaporeans today are all due to the toil and efforts of the people in the past two to three decades. The foundation for all these achievement has been internal stability and unity of the people. All our people basically have their own flats. They have their own jobs and savings. Their children are receiving good education. We do not wish to see the stability that has brought forth all these, shaken and insecure because of subversive activities and foreign interference. We would not like to see our efforts and fruit go to waste due to national unrest. We do not want to see our future and our children's future losing protection and we do not want to see that one day we all become refugees! Today the subject matter before us is not the question of human rights, not the question of freedom of speech or the question of opposition parties, but the matter of the threat to internal security and the question of our sovereignty and integrity being interfered with or intruded upon. So, if we cannot preserve our security and if we cannot protect our sovereignty and integrity, we shall not have any future to talk about, what then is there to talk about human rights or freedom?

As elected representatives we should clearly state that we resolutely support the Government in maintaining internal security against any foreign interference. Our internal affairs are for ourselves to manage. Nobody else should interfere with. Our destiny lies in our own hands. We need no foreigner to decide for us. I fully believe that at this hour we and our people have the same identical stand. In unison and with patriotic spirit we shall all be up against external intrusion. So I will avail of this opportunity to earnestly appeal to the opposition parties, particularly the MP for Potong Pasir, to discard party rivalry and prejudices, stop making misleading and confusing talks, but for the sake of national interests, bravely come forward to support this motion.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate on this motion standing in the name of the Member for Braddell Heights is long overdue. The issue at hand is one of ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chng, can I propose the Question first before you speak?

Mr Chng Hee Kok resumed his seat.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, before Mr Chng carries on, I note that we are debating on something which the Government can really never do. The motion says here, in paragraph (c), "calls upon the Government to be vigilant to all such groups". All these "such groups" refer to groups mentioned in para (a), ie, "other foreign interest groups", and para. (c) calls the Government to stop them from interfering in our domestic affairs. If they were operating in Singapore, you can stop them. But if these foreign interest groups are operating from abroad, how is the Government going to stop them? It is an impossible task to do - calling on the House to do something which is not possible.

Mr Speaker: There is local interference here now!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Then they should amend it. There is no point debating on something which we cannot do.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Member for Potong Pasir wants to change the motion, he should move an amendment to the motion instead of making a speech.

Mr Speaker: He has got an amendment.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: May I proceed now, Sir. Mr Speaker, first of all, I will like to apologize for jumping up early because, as I said, the debate is long overdue and I was in a great hurry to speak.

Sir, the issue at hand is one of crucial national importance. It concerns the security and sovereignty of our Republic. The question posed by this motion is simple: who can shape Singapore? The answer is equally simple, Sir - not proxies or those manipulated by foreign groups or foreign countries. Sir, Singapore must be shaped by Singaporeans. It goes without saying that Singapore must be governed by Singaporeans for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not one who would like to take the Member for Potong Pasir to task. When I first read his proposed amendment to this motion, I thought that he was not serious. What he has proposed strikes at the very core of a sovereign state. He is suggesting that all pressure groups, particularly foreign ones, have the right to interfere in our domestic affairs. I think even the US government will flinch at this idea that all foreign groups, and that includes legitimate agencies of foreign governments, may interfere in US affairs. Sir, I shall leave the Member's amendment for debate by my colleagues, suffice to say that the Member for Potong Pasir should, instead of encouraging these foreign groups to meddle in our domestic affairs, should urge these pressure groups, particularly those based in Australia, to direct more of their moral energy to help relieve the misery of a large number of Australians - the aborigines who are, in fact, the original owners of the land. The population of the aborigines today has almost been decimated. In 200 years, Sir, instead of an increasing population it has shrunk from about 650,000 to 160,000 today. This is where they should channel more of their efforts and their moral energy.

Sir, interference in our domestic affairs and black operations directed against us is nothing new. Let me perhaps go into the history books for a number of similar instances. In early 1959, the PAP, then in the Opposition, charged that the Americans had channelled half a million dollars to the then ruling Singapore People's Alliance as a political gift. Income tax investigations into the account at the First National City Bank of New York in the name of Chew Swee Kee, then Education Minister in the Singapore Alliance Government, were quickly choked off. The PAP subsequently called for a Commission of Inquiry. Although Chew denied the charges, he resigned from both his ministerial post and the Legislative Assembly before the Commission of Inquiry was set up. The Inquiry concluded that a total of about $700,000 was remitted to Chew's account. Chew refused to publicly disclose the source of the money. He claimed that the money was an outright gift to the Labour Front for the purpose of fighting subversion in the colony. He invested the bulk of the money in stocks and properties in Malaysia. This was perhaps the first recorded instance of American involvement in our domestic affairs, and hence influencing the political development in our country.

In the early 60s, when Singapore first attained internal self-government under the PAP, the American CIA decided to cultivate a young Police Superintendent in the Special Branch and tried to buy information from him. The espionage attempt, however, was uncovered. The CIA operators were arrested, jailed for two months and expelled. The case was raised by the Prime Minister on 30th August 1965 during an interview given to a group of Commonwealth correspondents at TV Singapura. The Prime Minister said that he had offered not to expose the case if the US government withdrew the diplomats involved and gave the Singapore Government $100 million for economic development. However, the US government, through an intermediary, tried to bribe the Prime Minister and the PAP with $10 million. This was refused and the case was exposed.

In the 60s and early 70s, Sir, two newspapers were named by the Government for getting involved in black operations against Singapore. The publisher of Eastern Sun was given HK$8 million by communist agents to publish a paper for the purpose of capturing and manipulating the local mass media. This is the most effective way of influencing public opinion and creating political situations favourable to their interests. Then there was the Singapore Herald whose main objective was to take on the Government. The majority funding for this paper was foreign capital.

Finally, Sir, there was the detention under the ISA of four top executives of the Nanyang Siang Pau. Its campaigns on the issues of Chinese language, education and culture, generated much heat among the Chinese-educated. All these cases, Sir, had tragic consequences and the Government must be credited with nipping them in the bud.

Why is there this interest in Singapore? In May 1971, the Prime Minister, speaking at the Sennett Community Centre, said, and I quote:

'We happen to occupy a very important geographical position. We are right at the southernmost tip of Asia. To the West is the Straits of Malacca, leading into the Indian Ocean. There a contest is going on for naval supremacy. To our East is the South China Sea and the Pacific. Several major countries have a deep interest in trying to get things in Singapore to go the way they want them to go.'

In short, Sir, our strategic location. But has this changed over time? Our strategic importance has not changed, Sir. However, we have made significant progress economically and politically in the last 20 years. Nevertheless, it will be naive to conclude that the major powers will therefore leave us alone.

Sir, the present attempt by the United States is the third in our history, and this attempt to cultivate and manipulate a group of people, well educated professionals who are critical of the Government, must be viewed in the context of what is happening in South Korea and Taiwan. The US is playing a key role in the democratization process in these two countries. Despite the fact that we have a democratically elected government, at every general election since independence, the message is clear: Singapore must be modelled on the US political environment - a situation prevailing in South Korea and Taiwan today. They took no cognizance of the fact that the PAP Government is freely chosen by the people. They are careless in not recognizing that we have a multi-racial society, unlike the homogeneous societies of South Korea and Taiwan and that the fabric of our society is easily damaged by raucous and careless political activity.

Sir, there is no question in my mind that the United States is involved and the plan to interfere in our domestic politics and to manipulate it for a particular political outcome is improper. The question is whether it is official US policy. The US Ambassador has placed the blame solely on errant diplomats. However, there are just too many people involved - one diplomat and three State Department officials. Surely, the US must set higher standards of behaviour of their foreign service personnel. This speaks volumes when compared to the action of the British High Commissioner. A quotation is probably useful here. In the book called "The Falklands War - The Full Story", an unnamed UN diplomat said this of the British. I quote:

'Britain is a Morris Minor country with Rolls-Royce diplomacy.'

He was not referring to the size of the country, Sir. He was complimenting the British for their diplomacy. Surely, the US, such a rich and powerful country, cannot be a Cadillac country with a Ford Model T diplomacy.

Sir, we are too small a country to get involved in a direct confrontation with the US. The measured responses of our Government show the importance that we attach to this special relationship. As a people, we are also rational and pragmatic. In another country if nearly three-quarters of the population have expressed disapproval of a similar action, the US embassy would have been ransacked, perhaps even set on fire. Fortunately, we are not that radical. This is due in no small way to the Government's low key response and the lack of rhetoric. I am sure many Members in this Chamber share with me a quiet anger. Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, a quiet anger and disappointment at this latest episode of US interference. However, we are also mindful that more harsh words may hurt the very warm feelings shared by our people and the people of the United States.

Sir, we have to do what is necessary. I am therefore in full support of the action taken by the Government. This Government has never flinched from doing what is right. It is for the US to leave us alone and to let us shape our political system and our future. I have been an admirer of the United States from a very young age - its vibrant society, a dynamic economy and a country where migrants can make it to the top - a land of golden opportunity. However, we are vastly different as a people and as a country. We are a small country and we do not have a safe landing if our society is not carefully crafted and nurtured. Therefore, it must be up to Singaporeans to craft and shape their own destiny.

Sir, with the backdrop of an approaching general election, some Singaporeans, particularly the younger and better educated, are equating the recent actions to that of stifling the Opposition and dissent. There are also some who are apprehensive that our business and external investments may be affected. Also, there is some confusion as the Marxist conspiracy is now linked with the interference by a capitalist country. And there are others who are not convinced by the Government's explanation for the cancellation of the Commission of Inquiry into the allegation of torture by a number of those detained under the Marxist conspiracy.

Sir, there are many things here, and the sum total is that there are doubts and confusion in the minds of our people, and these could be easily exploited and capitalized by those who are opposed to the Government. This will be tragic as the protagonists in the present episode will have achieved what they have set out to do without even firing a single shot. I therefore urge the Government to make every effort to dispel these misconceptions.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 18th of April this year, nine ex-detainees issued a Joint Statement. They denied everything which they had admitted about their part in the Marxist conspiracy. They claimed that ISD had tortured them. The Government arrested eight of them, together with Patrick Seong who was closely associated with several of the detainees, to get to the bottom of the matter.

Within a week, the detainees had sworn statutory declarations that they had not told any untruths to ISD or on television and, in the case of five of the detainees, that they had been well treated and not tortured. After this, it became obvious that the Joint Statement was not a serious statement of facts in dispute. It was a propaganda exercise in embarrassing the Government, creating doubts, preparing the ground for the next general election.

This settled what the Joint Statement was about. But it was not the whole story. The Government did not believe that the detainees who had signed the Joint Statement - eight plus one who was absent in Britain - were the only ones who were involved. It was convinced that there were foreigners who were behind these ex-detainees. And so in the Press Statement which we put out on 28th April, the Government stated its suspicion. And I quote from this Press Statement:

'FOREIGN GROUPS: STAY OUT

The government has reasons to believe the prime movers of the Joint Statement are not amongst the nine detainees who signed the Joint Statement. Their intention is to turn the personal predicament of the nine into a political issue. They have opened up with this salvo on the government, accusing it of illegal use of force and detention without trial of innocent Singaporeans. ... The prime movers expected the government to be put on the defensive ... because elections were expected. Then they could build up a campaign of smears about illegal and improper use of the ISA, climaxing in an election campaign for more Western style press freedoms, democracy, and human rights. ...

Overseas interest groups, the foreign press and foreign powers have no right to interfere. ... These are internal issues, and the next elections will resolve them in a decisive manner.

As the general elections approach, the government expects foreign groups to make more attempts to use Singaporeans as proxies to influence the domestic politics of Singapore. It would not be for the first time in Singapore's history. ...

The government has acted and must act firmly against threats to the security of Singapore. ... Singaporeans who allow themselves to be used as proxies by foreign groups, or become agents of foreign powers, should remember the government's warning, ... that subversion means acting for foreign powers, whether Communist or Western.'

This was even before the Government had any definite proof of foreign involvement. But subsequent developments have borne out and vindicated its assessment. It is now clear that American diplomats had been involved instigating Patrick Seong, Francis Seow and others to oppose the Government. The central issue facing Singaporeans now is foreign interference in our domestic politics.

The evidence emerged sooner than we expected. On 29th April, the First Deputy Prime Minister, Prof. Jayakumar and myself gave a press conference defending this assessment that foreign elements were involved. Even as we were speaking, although we did not know it then, ISD was making a breakthrough with Patrick Seong. That same evening, Patrick Seong was writing out, in longhand, an account of his contacts with Hendrickson. Later on, this account became Patrick Seong's second statutory declaration. The first one described how he had instigated the detainees to put out the statement and embarrass the Government. Patrick Seong's second statutory declaration described how Hendrickson had cultivated and propositioned him and urged him to enter politics against the Government.

It is an exciting story. Devan Nair has said that it reads like a spy thriller. He is not far wrong because Hendrickson did have some intelligence background.

(a) From 1975 to 1977, for three years, Hendrickson was Vice-Consul in Udorn, North Eastern Thailand, near the border with Laos. Udorn is the centre of many Thai border security activities. And Hendrickson's duties there included monitoring the activities of CPT insurgents (communist insurgents belonging to the Communist Party of Thailand).

(b) Then he went to Bangkok to be Second Secretary. Then from 1979 to 1983, Hendrickson was First Secretary in Manila. These were the years of the Marcos government. But Hendrickson's duties were not to keep in touch with the Marcos government. His job was to keep in touch with the Aquino camp.

So he must have imagined that he was doing the same thing in Singapore. But Singapore is not the Philippines. First, we have never been an American protectorate. The Philippines was, for nearly 50 years. You remember General Douglas MacArthur, the man with a corncob pipe, who said "Old soldiers never die. They only fade away." Douglas MacArthur was Military Adviser to the Philippines Commonwealth before the Second World War. He was never a Military Adviser to the President of the Republic of Singapore.

Secondly, US troops have never been stationed in Singapore. Clarke and Subic are in the Philippines, not here.

Thirdly, the Member for Radin Mas referred to the Prime Minister's statement in 1965, when he made public the CIA's effort to bribe one of our civil servants. The Member for Radin Mas did not point out that the Prime Minister had said this in reply to a question. And the question he was asked was, "Should the British leave their bases here, would we allow the Americans to come in and take their place?" Because we need the bases for security and for the economic activity they generated. And the Prime Minister's answer was, "No, never allow the Americans in." And he gave three reasons. The spy story was one of them, and it boiled down to the inability of the Americans to behave themselves.

So if Hendrickson had known all this, he should jolly well have laid off. But he was ignorant'. He went ahead and met lawyers and cultivated them.

Patrick Seong, his first contact was in May 1987. He met Seong and other lawyers at the 1819 Restaurant - a very swank place to talk politics. This could have been considered "innocent information gathering".

By the next meeting, it was already not-so-innocent. In January 1988, Hendrickson telephoned Seong out of the blue. He had found Seong's telephone number, rang him up, asked Patrick Seong to meet him alone. Patrick Seong had some qualms, but went ahead. Hendrickson told Seong that he was "putting up a report on human rights in Singapore", which indeed he was. But when Patrick Seong took him at face value and started talking about the detainees who were his clients, and how they had been treated in detention, he found that Hendrickson was not interested. His concern was not torture or ill-treatment. Hendrickson wanted to talk politics - whether the General Elections would be held this year, how the GRC Bill would affect the chances for the Opposition and (the Member for Potong Pasir would be glad to hear this) the chances of the MP for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam, winning the next elections.

Hendrickson was already on dangerous ground. Under cover of "human rights-related concerns" (his phrase in the report he wrote), Hendrickson was not only collecting information on Singapore politics, but taking sides on domestic political issues. He wrote the report, a 1987 State Department official report, on human rights in Singapore. They write us up. Once a year we get a report card, like a good boy in school. And all these points which he had raised - GRCs, chances for the Opposition, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, executive interference in the Judiciary - he put them into the report. None of these issues had anything to do with human rights. This was not just an account of what was happening in Singapore; it was not a neutral recitation. It was a listing of where the US considered Singapore to have sinned. Against what? Against American political ideals. MFA saw the report before we learnt of Hendrickson's other extra-curricular activities. We protested formally to the US at this interference in our domestic politics. It showed his bent and the trend.

After this meeting, even Seong became suspicious of Hendrickson. I read what he said, Patrick Seong's own words:

'I was disappointed that Hank did not show much interest when I spoke about the detainees. His views and questions on local political issues and his effort to seek me out even though we only met once nearly one year ago made me apprehensive about what he was up to. What Soh Lung said before her arrest regarding Hank being a possible CIA agent [this is not the Government saying this, mind you; this is Teo Soh Lung saying this: Hank being a possible CIA agent] was also on my mind.

So, already on dangerous ground, Hendrickson pressed on.

In March 1988, just two months ago, he did something which put him clearly beyond the pale. Hendrickson told Patrick Seong, "Lambertson is coming to town". David Lambertson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asia, a very senior official from the State Department. "Please gather a group of like-minded friends to meet Lambertson." "Like-minded friends" means don't invite the Member for Chua Chu Kang or MacPherson or anybody like that. For that matter, they did not approach the Member for Potong Pasir; I don't know why. So Seong invited Teo Soh Lung and Tang Lay Lee to go to the meeting. The two girls went but they did not make it only because they got mixed up as to where to rendezvous at the Marina Mandarin. So they gave up and went home. But they tried to go. The meeting was held in the lobby of the Marina Mandarin. As I said, we have photographs to show that this took place.

So Hendrickson went through the whole procedure. First, you must warm up your client. He warmed up Patrick Seong by asking him about various political issues in Singapore. He asked Patrick Seong whether GRCs would work to the disadvantage of the Opposition. This was an old question which he had already gone over with Patrick Seong before. So why was he saying it again? Patrick Seong explained in his statutory declaration:

'I believe he asked me this again for the benefit of David Lambertson as he had posed this question to me before at our second meeting.'

In other words, Hendrickson was impressing his boss.

Having done that, he went on to talk about elections. Hendrickson asked why professionals were not coming forward to stand in the elections, and who were the lawyers who could be potential candidates. Getting warmer. Then he asked Patrick Seong whether Patrick Seong would consider standing for election himself. Patrick Seong said:

'Francis Seow had invited me to join him to stand for elections but that I was unlikely to stand. I said I valued my private life and that I was not cut out for public speaking.'

Patrick Seong did not tell him, but he wrote in his statutory declaration, that there was another reason, which was that he had heard of Francis Seow's reputation, his problems with money, his affairs with women, his inability even to pay his telephone bills, and he did not want to be tarred with the same brush. Patrick Seong is quite a sensible man. Having come this close, Hendrickson now came to the point of the meeting. Remember, Patrick Seong has said, "I don't want to stand." But Hendrickson nevertheless went on. He told Patrick Seong:

'Lawyers would vote against the PAP because of the Law Society's experience with the Select Committee's hearings on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill.'

You will remember that was the occasion when Francis Seow showed up and took on the Prime Minister.

Hendrickson urged lawyers to contest the elections because they were disgruntled and were articulate and enjoyed a professional status. Lambertson watching, Hendrickson speaking, Patrick Seong listening. Lambertson - did he contradict Hendrickson? Did he restrain him? He remained silent, most eloquent silence.

This was not a casual remark. Hendrickson had cultivated Patrick Seong for one year. He had invited Seong to a meeting with Lambertson, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. He had explicitly asked Patrick Seong to bring along "like-minded friends", in other words, other Singaporeans opposed to the Government. And now, in the presence of his superior, he was giving Patrick Seong a serious message. In other words, it is not just Hendrickson saying this, but "This is a position which my boss adheres to."

This gives the game way. This meeting exposed the reason why Patrick Seong had been cultivated by Hendrickson and why Hendrickson had cultivated other people as well. Ostensibly, just legitimate contacts but, in fact, to prepare the ground for such an approach. Hendrickson was trying to manipulate, instigate Singaporeans, to bring about a particular political outcome. And this meeting shows that Lambertson was fully aware of what Hendrickson was doing, endorsed it, and was therefore behaving equally improperly.

We are not the only ones to be suspicious of this meeting. Patrick Seong, after this meeting, became even more wary of Hendrickson, and decided that he would not want to meet Hendrickson any more. He said:

'I felt odd that Hank [Hendrickson] should have made so much effort to seek me out to arrange for me to meet Lambertson, who seemed to be a senior official. I was suspicious of his motives and did not want to be involved in something over which I did not have any control. He had shown a keen interest in my political intentions but I had made up my mind that I would not stand for elections.'

In other words, Patrick Seong knew that Hendrickson was trying to get him to enter politics, but Patrick felt that he was being manipulated and he did not want to get entangled.

What Patrick Seong said confirmed Government's suspicions about Francis Seow. Francis Seow had been totally apolitical, enjoyed the good life, showed no interest in human rights or any political issues until after the Select Committee hearings on the Legal Profession Act. Then he took a sudden interest in politics. Overnight, he became a champion of human rights. He started speaking at regional conferences, one after the other. He went overseas to deliver eloquent addresses.

We knew that he was in close contact with Hendrickson. We knew he was clearing his debts, debts which had been outstanding for many years. This was not just a chance fact, but an especially significant datum, because the Government knew that Hendrickson had said to another one of his contacts (not Francis Seow), "Surely, money should not be a problem". A facetious remark? From a man like Hendrickson, doing so many other things, with an experience in intelligence? In the context of Hendrickson's activities, this was a small, highly significant, piece, a fragment which made sense of the overall pattern.

There was no choice. The Government therefore arrested Seow to find out his part in the affair. Now Seow has sworn a statutory declaration. You have read parts of it. Seow's statutory declaration confirms that he was involved, that he had a much bigger role to play than Patrick Seong; and, secondly, the US diplomats and officials were up to no good.

What was the first thing Francis Seow did, when he took an interest in politics? Did he form a political party? Did he nail his banner to the mast? Did he tell the whole world that he was taking on the PAP and invite all like -minded honourable men to join him? He sought promise of asylum. And he took this very seriously. He made three attempts to make sure that he had a bolt-hole, three efforts. First, he approached the then British High Commissioner, Sir Hamilton Whyte. He said,

"Can I have asylum in Britain should anything happen? "

The British High Commissioner said,

"It is very difficult to say. This is a Conservative government, not a Labour one. Conservatives are more strict but I will check."

So Sir Hamilton Whyte checked and three or four weeks later he told Francis Seow, "I am afraid it is a no-go situation." And, as Francis Seow, says, "I was quite disappointed." It was not just a casual query. He had a serious purpose in asking for asylum.

He did not give up. He tried Britain again. Francis Seow has a good friend, Haque Khan, Pakistani, "a prominent businessman in the UK". So Francis spoke to Haque Khan. Francis Seow said:

'He told me that there was no problem in getting asylum in UK as he had influential British friends and all I had to do was to go to UK and he could arrange for me the necessary stay.'

It can be fixed. As our Indonesian friends would say, "bisa diator". (The Indonesians have nothing to do with this).

But it was not good enough for Francis Seow. He went on to seek an assurance from a government, not a private businessman, however powerful and influential. He looked up the Americans. Hendrickson had introduced him to Snyder in Singapore. He had asked for Snyder's name, address and telephone number in Washington. He told Snyder, "I will look you up in Washington." Snyder said, "Most delighted to see you." This was at the end of October. Francis Seow was in America in November or December. He was not in Washington. He was in New York. He made a special weekend trip to Washington to meet Snyder. He telephoned Snyder at the State Department. Snyder showed up. By that time, Snyder was no longer in his old job. So to keep bureaucratic continuity, he brought along his old subordinate, Colin Helmer, a junior official, a minion, but good enough to hand over so that somebody maintains this link. They went to a fast-food restaurant. Francis Seow is very bitter about this. They talked serious business, small eats but big business. They talked about politics. Snyder asked him in detail about his plans. "Are you going to contest? How are you going to contest? Is it as an independent? Are you going to join a party or what are you going to do?" Seow remembers the whole conversation up to the crucial point. Then everything dissolved into soft focus, and he becomes vague. It is like a film which has been censored by the censors board. Seow does not say what Snyder told him on this key issue of asylum. But Seow admits that somehow he was reassured. He said;

'Snyder liked my style of approach and saw me as a potential leading opposition personality. [He's a big man.] I sensed that Snyder was well disposed towards me and my political intentions, and that he would help me to emigrate to US should I ever want to do so.'

What did Snyder say to give Francis Seow such a happy sense? Francis Seow does not say. It is left to your imagination. But it was after this meeting in Washington, when Seow returned from the US, that "the idea of taking part in politics at the coming election congealed in my mind". So although he had had the thought, he did not pursue it until he got this reassurance.

How do you interpret this? It must be that he tried the British. The British did not give him anything. He sought American help. Why did he go to Washington? Well, Seow was an experienced lawyer. He did not want to be told by a junior official, like Hendrickson, that he had American support. Hendrickson might be speaking off his own bat, without backing, which was why Hendrickson brought Lambertson to show Patrick Seong, remember. So to assure himself that this was not just Hendrickson, a junior first secretary at the US Embassy in Singapore, but also Snyder, a superior at headquarters, in the State Department in Washington, Seow went there, and dialled a State Department telephone, number. It worked, it was the real McCoy. Then he raised the matter with Snyder. He did not discuss it with Hendrickson. And Seow says:

'I felt comforted that I had friendly faces in the State Department who were supportive of my plans and willing to help secure refuge for me when needed.'

After this, he acted with confidence, as he had received the reassurance which he had failed to get from the British High Commissioner.

Is this a chance meeting? He fully understood its significance. If he did not fully understand what this meeting meant, he would not have spoken to Devan Nair about it later on, and you read what Francis Seow said to Devan Nair. He said:

'I could have given him the impression that I had the backing of the State Departemnt. I gave Devan the address and telephone number of Snyder and Colin Helmer. I said that both of them were useful chaps to know when he [Devan] was back in the US because they might be able to get things done for him. If one required asylum, they might be able to help. I disclosed these to Devan so that he would feel at ease to help me later on.'

So if he had received no assurance, why did he tell Devan Nair, "If you need asylum, get in touch with these two people."?

Seow's request for asylum is important because it implicates and incriminates both Seow himself and also the Americans he spoke to. Why would Seow need asylum, unless he is about to do something illegal? The Wall Street Journal pretends that this is a routine precaution which Opposition politicians in Singapore have to take. But other Opposition political leaders do not first get a guarantee of asylum before entering politics. The PAP leadership never got a guarantee before they entered politics against the British. Devan Nair did not.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chiam See Tong didn't.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Dr Lee Siew Choh never sought a guarantee. Mr Jeyaretnam never sought a guarantee. Even the Member for Potong Pasir. Despite his words in support of the American position this morning, which were out of order, he has not told us whether he has a guarantee or not. But I do not believe he has. If I am mistaken, I stand corrected.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been invited to answer the question whether I got guarantees from the Americans. Well, I had many lunches with Mr Hendrickson. We spoke about Singapore's politics and I can assure this House that not once did he ask me to be his proxy or to fight for the Americans. It was nothing of that sort. And no guarantee of asylum, or anything of that sort. We just spoke about politics generally, and he never encouraged me to get more members. None of that sort. This is my personal experience.

But I think the more important thing now is that we are talking about asylum. I think this House should make it a point not only foreigners giving us asylum but whether or not we have any interest outside Singapore. Whether we can run away in time of trouble. I have got no houses abroad. I have got no bank accounts abroad. I have got nothing abroad. All my assets are here in Singapore. Can other Members and Ministers say the same?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am happy to hear the assurance given by the Member for Potong Pasir. It confirms our own assessment. Hendrickson must have agreed with us that the Member for Potong Pasir is upright, incorruptible and insubornable. And therefore he never tried to do with Mr Chiam what he tried with Francis Seow. But if the Member for Potong Pasir did not have an offer for asylum nor is he seeking one, as he has reassured this House, why did Francis Seow need one?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Ask him.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: We have to ask him. So what is Francis Seow up to? What are the Americans up to? Would the US officials have given Seow the impression that asylum was forthcoming, unless they wanted him to do something that would get him into trouble? And if, as some have pretended, there was nothing wrong with offering Francis Seow asylum, it is just a humanitarian gesture, why did Sir Hamilton Whyte tell Francis Seow, "I am terribly sorry. It is a no-go situation"? It is not so innocent.

One year later, the value of this assurance became clear. The Americans collected their rain check. On the 13th November 1987, Hendrickson met Seow at the Hotel Taipan for lunch. This is analogous to the Marina Mandarin meeting with Patrick Seong. Hendrickson did with Francis Seow what he later did with Patrick Seong: he instructed Seow what to do.

He had a modus operandi, a standard operating procedure. First, he criticized the Government. I quote from Francis Seow's statement:

'Hank said that the PM and the government were intolerant of criticism. This was not conducive to political development and democracy in Singapore and Singapore was an over-regulated society where rules and regulations governed every facet of Singapore life.'

In saying this, Hendrickson was already wrong. He was a diplomat accredited to the Singapore government. He was supposed to report what is happening in this country, not to meddle with what is happening in this country. Yet here he is, attacking the Singapore Government, prodding Seow to oppose his own Government. He knew who Francis Seow was. Hendrickson knew that Francis Seow had had to step down as President of the Law Society because of his record. The Government had openly and publicly passed legislation in Parliament to amend the Legal Profession Act. And Seow was disqualified as President of the Law Society because he had been disciplined three times for professional misconduct; not once, but three times.

For Hendrickson to enlist Seow as an Opposition candidate, even if Seow had had a perfectly clean disciplinary record and completely unblemished, was in itself highly improper behaviour for a diplomat. But Hendrickson went further. He urged Seow, in explicit and direct terms, to get a group of young professionals to contest in the next general elections, to become a more effective Opposition. I quote, from Seow:

'He [Hendrickson] said that I should play a more positive role to lead the opposition.

He remarked that after Ben Jeyaretnam's disqualification, there was no credible opposition and he thought that I could fulfil the role left vacant by Ben. [He forgot about the Member for Potong Pasir.] Hank also said that from the pick of available opposition candidates, I was probably the best person to lead them because I was able to reason and argue with the PM at the Select Committee hearings, had the facility of language and the ability to think on my feet.

Hank emphasised the need to recruit more young professionals into the opposition. He said that this would pave the way for the establishment of a more effective opposition in Parliament.'

In other words, he is telling Seow, "There is a gap in Singapore politics. Jeyaratnam fulfilled the role. He is out. There is nobody standing there to take on the Government. You move in. And not just you move in, but you get others with you so that you will have an effective Opposition to take on the Government and get young professionals to join the Opposition." It was serious advice, advice which Seow took. Because although the discussions had gone on for a year - the Select Committee hearings were in October 1986 and this was already November 1987 - and Seow had talked and made speeches, he had not yet gone to recruit people or to prepare seriously. Only after the November 1987 meeting did Seow start to prepare seriously for elections. He would not tell you that he did it because he was told, but he admits that it took place only after the meeting. I read Seow:

'In fact, it was only from the start of this year [that means 1988] or the end of 1987, that I began to seriously set about making concrete plans. I worked out a list of professionals to approach to join me to take part in the election. These were persons whom I assessed were likely to be interested in standing for elections.'

So that is the meaning. Asylum offered. Person hooked, made beholden. First instruction: get an Opposition together. Seow complied. Will it be the last instruc- tion which he would have given Seow? Or would there have been more?

What about the money? One of the major reasons for the Government getting suspicious about Seow was his money affairs. We are still investigating his financial affairs, but already some suspicious patterns have come to light which Francis Seow is having difficulty explaining.

Even today Seow still owes various people more than $1.2 million. This includes $350,000 which his girl friend, Mei Seah, who is in Kuala Lumpur, lent him to help him to repay an overdraft from the UMBC in August 1986. Why a girl friend should lend a boy friend $350,000, I do not know.

Mr Chiam See Tong: They were in love.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, I hate to pursue this line, but I do not know whether the Member for Potong Pasir also makes it a habit to borrow money from his girl friends!

Seow has also been withdrawing large sums of money from his company's account, far more than the firm was earning. From 1975 to 1987 his firm earned $705,000. Seow's net drawing amounted to more than $11 million. He put some in, then he took more out, but always more out than in. So the firm's capital is now in deficit. by about $300,000. He has been borrowing from the firm.

Every year from 1974 onwards till 1986 he has taken out more money from the firm than he has paid back. Drawings, this is money owed. When he has paid back, which sometimes he has, some of the deposits have been in cash, others by cheque, which is only to be expected. Some cash transactions, some cheque transactions, until 1986. In 1987, the pattern abruptly changed. He paid in $203,000 in 21 instalments. He had never done this before. This was more than twice as much as he had ever paid to the firm in any one year. For the first time deposits exceeded withdrawals. For the first time all the deposits were in cash. $203,000 in cash! You need suitcases to carry the money. Several of these cash deposits were very large. One was $100,000; another four added up to $55,000. What happened?

There are other suggestions. Seow claims that this year he received another $50,000 in cash. From whom? One of the Loh brothers of Ka Wah Bank. You remember Ka Wah Bank? It is a bank which collapsed in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong government was forced to step in and bail them out. The Loh brothers had caused this collapse. They were charged with fraud in Hong Kong. They jumped bail. They went to Taiwan. Seow met one of the Loh brothers in Taiwan. He paid Seow $50,000 in cash. Why?

Why should Mei Seah, or one of the Loh brothers from the Kah Wah Bank - they take money, you know; they do not give money - why should they suddenly make generous donations to Francis Seow, or lend him large sums of money, unsecured, knowing his record as a creditor, and his credit-unworthiness? Why? ISD is now asking Francis Seow. But whatever ISD turns up, whatever the sources of these funds, and whether or not any of these sums can be traced back to their ultimate donors, who gave whom the money to give to Seow? Where did it come from? Whatever the answers, Seow's finances clearly raise many questions.

Some people have said what Hendrickson did was nothing wrong. He talked to Seow, he kept in touch with Seow, he maintained contact. Even his words "money is not a problem", so what? But Hendrickson's behaviour was grossly improper and unbecoming of a diplomat.

I think many Singaporeans have difficulty imagining how improper and flagrant a violation this is because the United States is, a friendly country and you cannot imagine a friend doing this to you. But let me present it in a different way and consider some similar situations.

The first example the 1 DPM has used. You invite a guest into your home to have dinner. Instead of sitting in a sitting room and having dinner in the dining room, he goes into your bedroom, messes up your master bedroom toilet and lies on your master bed. Is that what a friend is supposed to do?

Consider another analogy. Supposing it was not Mr Hendrickson of the US Embassy, but a Russian from the Russian Embassy, say Mr Bezrukavnikov. I do not know if there is one, but somebody like that. Do you think it would be a legitimate activity for a Russian diplomat in Singapore to cultivate the Opposition and tell them to form an Opposition party?

Let us get closer to home. Supposing it was our diplomat in Malaysia. A First Secretary in Kuala Lumpur cultivating the DAP Secretary-General, telling DAP, that Dr Mahathir and his government are wrong, immoral, doing bad things; telling DAP to get together, Malay professionals, contest, become credible. Do you think that he will not be expelled by the Malaysian government, or when he came back to Singapore we would not hang, draw and quarter him?

Imagine a fourth example. A Malaysian diplomat in Singapore cultivating PKMS, advising them to oppose GRCs, telling them to become a force and how to become a force and offering them: if anything happens, they can have asylum in Malaysia. Would that be proper? It is unthinkable. It is unthinkable for us to do it in KL. It is unthinkable for them to do it in Singapore. And therefore, we do not do it, they do not do it. But what Hendrickson, Snyder and Lambertson did was exactly the same. Just change the names.

The Americans now have egg on their face. The US State Department has denied that their diplomats did anything wrong. Their spokesman, Richard Gong of USIS in Singapore, said:

'Mr Hendrickson's activities in Singapore were entirely in keeping with normal diplomatic practice and his responsibilities as an officer of the foreign service of the United States.'

This is a fig leaf, is it not? Americans are strange. When they have egg on their face they look for a fig leaf to cover themselves.

But what does this blanket and vague denial mean? What is it which he is claiming? Is he saying that the meetings reported by Patrick Seong and Francis Seow never took place? All this is a figment of ISD's fevered imagination? Or is he saying the meetings took place, but when they met they discussed Superbowl football and never talked about Singapore politics? Or is he saying they talked about Singapore politics, but Patrick Seong and Francis Seow totally misunderstood Hendrickson and Snyder, and he was not giving any encouragement? Because they speak American English, which is different from Singapore English? Or is he saying Hendrickson and Snyder did everything which is alleged, everything which has been reported, but they were fully entitled to do so and they will continue to do so in future? Which?

How does Richard Gong know what Hendrickson and Snyder said to Patrick Seong and Francis Seow? He was not there. Only Hendrickson, Snyder and Lambertson know that, and they have said nothing. They have not denied anything in the statutory declarations or in the Government press statements, even though if what had been said had been untrue they would all have been gravely defamed. Why are they not challenging this? Our position is, if they challenge this, we will invite them to offer themselves for cross-examination. Let us get to the bottom of this. Let us match their account with Francis Seow's and Patrick Seong's. Let us put them together, and see who is lying. We can do it face-to-face. Or if they are reluctant to come back to Singapore, we can do it by long-distance satellite television. USIS organizes these functions frequently enough. Lambertson may have even appeared on some of these Telenet functions. Produce them again. We will have Francis Seow and Patrick Seong on this end. They can have Lambertson, Snyder and Hendrickson on the other end. And the whole of Southeast Asia can see what American diplomats have been doing and can observe American State Department officials clearing their names honourably. Let us do it.

We must keep foreigners out of domestic politics. For us, this is not just a question of abstract moral principle but an issue of life and death.

Some people doubt that the Americans meant us harm. Well, they may or may not mean us harm. Let us assume they intended to do us well. But how can Hendrickson or any official like Hendrickson, total experience in Southeast Asia - Udorn, Bangkok, Manila -yiow can he possibly have an inkling of how Singapore works? What makes this place stick together and tick? Or what Singaporeans need and want?

Even for us, 77 MPs, loyal to Singapore, it is already a heavy and difficult responsibility to decide and to debate and resolve what is the right thing to do for Singapore. How can a foreigner, operating covertly behind the scenes, do better for us, even assuming he means well?

But how can you assume that he means well? How can you be sure that he is doing this for Singapore? Why should an American career official, whose promotion and advancement depends on the United States of America, risk his career, his future, much less his life, for Singapore? Suppose some of Hendrickson's proteges are elected as MPs in the next general election. When they swear in as MPs, will they swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore? Or will they swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America? We will need another copy here, not just this Constitution and not just the American one, but whose else?

We are a very open society. Few other countries welcome foreigners so warmly or in such large numbers as we do. We are happy if they come as tourists. We are pleased if they come as businessmen. We welcome them to trade, to invest, to report what is happening in Singapore, or to learn about Singapore. Singaporeans go overseas to do the same. But no foreigner, never mind whether he is a diplomat, a foreign correspondent, or a human rights activist, should meddle in our domestic politics. If he does, he will be stopped. If he is a diplomat, he will be expelled. If he is not, he will be arrested. Politics in Singapore is strictly for Singaporeans. If we let others join in, we will soon be destroyed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

12.40 pm

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by my colleagues, the Members for Braddell Heights and Radin Mas.

Sir, people from all walks of life have expressed anger and outrage at the impertinence of American diplomat, E.M. Hendrickson and the three US State Department officials in interfering in our domestic politics. I am also angered and outraged by their actions. However, I am aware that some people, especially some young professionals, feel that such interference was not wrong, or at the most, was a "political wrong" to which the Government has over-reacted. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I submit that a political wrong is still a wrong and I feel that the Government has reacted in the interests of Singapore by tackling this matter with more restraint than I would have thought it deserved. For this group of young professionals to feel this way is quite understandable. They may not be able to see in greater depth the danger and the irreparable harm such actions by outsiders can do to Singapore and her people.

Therefore, Singapore as a nation and her people ought to ask themselves, "Do we want to be left alone as a people and as an independent, sovereign nation, to chart our own destiny and future, or do we want foreigners, be they friendly or otherwise, to have a say in our way of life?" Let us look at this matter in its proper perspective.

Singapore and the USA have a more than cordial relationship. We even regard them as our friends and yet beneath diplomatic smiles and handshakes, there lurks some senior American officials who connive to deal us a blow below the belt. Obviously, they do not believe in fair play. So what is their motive? I think it has something to do with their own interests. It seem that we are up against people who have no compunction in playing foul. These American officials, despite US Government's denial, mounted a black operation against Singapore. They resorted to underhanded, yet blatant, operations to influence and manipulate our domestic politics. They know they are unable to influence or manipulate the PAP Government or its MPs. There have been illustrations on this and I have no wish to go over the same ground.

Apparently, Sir, the objective of those Americans is to provide a 'credible' opposition to the PAP through independent candidates. Therefore, the people of Singapore ought to be very cautious of independent candidates who stand for elections at the instigation and encouragement of foreigners. I would urge the people of Singapore to ruminate the consequences that will follow if they elect these independent candidates.

These people are not interested in improving the standard of living for Singaporeans, or for that matter, in building a better future for Singaporeans. They are only interested in becoming a "voice of opposition" in Parliament. But this reason is not good enough. What good would mere words be and what good would mere words do also? What would the need of people be? What the people need are actions and deeds. Actions for the people and deeds for the nation. That is why we have the People's Action Party. For whom will those independent candidates speak for? Will they be the voice of the constituents? Or will they be the voice, in this case, of the American mentors and benefactors?

Sir, I may not have years of political experience behind me and I may not have seen everything. But I know that I am not wrong in saying this. Singapore needs political leaders who are committed and dedicated Singaporeans - people who have the tenacity and courage to carry out the task of improving the lot of her people, however unpleasant the task may be at times. This is their job. Singapore will not survive simply by a group of people staging some acts in Parliament. Acts with a small "a". Sir, this is not to belittle Parliament but to reinforce my earlier point that working in the interest of the people is the paramount duty of an elected representative. Let me say this. If the Government of Singapore comprised people who decided to enter politics at the instigation and encouragement of foreigners, this surely will be the death-knell for Singapore. We will then have a puppet government because these people will not serve the interests of Singapore nor Singaporeans but their own personal interests and the interests of their foreign supporters. What happens to the people then? They will be the ones to suffer, as can be seen by what is happening in those countries which are victims of foreign intervention, some unwittingly and some even by chance.

Therefore, Sir, in essence, the stake is Singapore. The people of Singapore cannot, in my view, play a passive role. They must decide what they want and play their part because only they can decide who should govern Singapore. In short, the future of Singapore lies with Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. For myself, I choose to stand behind this present Government and the PAP. I fully support the actions taken by the Government to protect the security of Singapore and I would expect the Government to continue its vigilance against subversion by locals as well as foreigners.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, once again I fully support the motion moved by the Members for Braddell Heights and Radin Mas.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Braddell Heights and the Member for Radin Mas.

Sir, Singapore is an independent sovereign country. We have our sovereignty and our dignity which are sacrosanct and cannot be intruded upon. Anybody who wants to damage our integrity or to make inroads into our sovereignty, Singaporeans with flesh and blood will give them such a heavy blow. We have to defend our territorial integrity and independent sovereignty which is the bounden duty of every citizen. As an elected government, before anything should happen, we should take speedy action to arrest those subversive elements and bring them to book and to crush their intrigues. That is a most reasonable action that a responsible government should do. On behalf of the Jurong electorate, I fully support the actions taken by the Government.

Singapore is a small country. But under the leadership of a judicious government, we have been marching on the road to prosperity. We have never borrowed from another country. We do not owe any country any debt or beholden to any other country. Therefore, when our Prime Minister and national leaders go abroad to visit bigger countries, they have been accorded respect and courtesy. This cannot be compared with leaders of small countries visiting bigger countries to seek aid. When we go abroad, we are respected by other people. Even when our people travel abroad, they are well treated when they produce the red Singapore passport at custom checkpoints. So I do not understand why there could be foreign diplomats and other elements who want to interfere with our internal affairs. We should stress and seriously tell these people that we will not allow them to interfere in our internal affairs, be they from great powers or from any other sources. We must repel and expose such intrigue.

Singapore does not have natural resources. We have been able to live in this corner of Southeast Asia with prosperity. It is not an easy matter. We have built up an independent Singapore through our toil and effort and are prosperous and progressive. These results should be valued by every Singaporean. I cannot imagine how there can be some Singaporeans who should have links with foreign forces to build up an opposition camp against our Government.

I agree that the people have the right and freedom to form their organizations and to take part in politics. But we should not do so under the instigation of foreign forces and subversive element. We should not be the agents for foreign forces. From historical experiences, we know that foreign interference would not bring about any good ends to a country. For the sake of our security and peace, we should eradicate all the internal subversive element and to strenghten our effort.

I support the motion, Sir.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has once again won the confidence of the people of Singapore by its firm action to prevent our country from being subverted whether by Marxists, communists, Western powers or other foreign interest groups.

This can be seen from the reaction of Singaporeans over the American interference in Singapore's domestic politics involving Hendrickson and Francis Seow. A telephone survey carried out by the Research Department of the Straits Times on 19th May found that 79% of those surveyed were aware that the Government has asked Hendrickson to leave after revealing he has been instigating the opposition against the Government. Of this, 77% thinks that the government was right in asking him to leave.

Grassroots leaders from 12 constituencies at a get-together at the Cairnhill Community Centre on 21st May expressed their anger and frustration over the American interference in Singapore's domestic affairs. They fully supported the Government's action and called upon the Government to be vigilant of all foreign interference. And on 22nd May 1988, during the ministerial walkabout at two constituencies, Rochore and Teck Ghee, hundreds of residents signed petitions protesting against American interference.

All these show that Singaporeans fully support the Government's action in protecting our national security.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is but a small island with no natural resources and surrounded by much bigger neighbours. Because of our open economy, our stability and future prosperity can be easily influenced by other super-powers. Although America has been one of our closest friends and allies, Singaporeans realize that the Government's firm action in asking for the recall of one of their errant officers, Hendrickson, will help to discourage other super-powers like Russia and China from interfering in our domestic affairs.

Since our independence in 1965, our Government, the PAP government, has demonstrated time and again that it is with such firm action that Singapore finally won the respect and confidence not only of Singaporeans but also of foreign investors. Singapore's success today has been due to a large extent to this confidence that has been built up through these years. Singaporeans will therefore continue to support and have confidence in the Government's firm and decisive action against foreign interference in our domestic affairs.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this motion is of public importance and therefore we should take our time debating it. Many Members have indicated to me that they would like to speak, and in order not to overload the proceedings for the day, I propose that we spread this debate over a few days till about Tuesday, 31st May, and we sit for about half a day each day.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, therefore, I beg to move,

That this Debate be now adjourned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Debate be now adjourned.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate on what day, Mr Goh?

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.