CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON DETAINEES UNDER THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AFTER THEIR RELEASE

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the House has listened to the Minister for Finance outlining his Government's plans for continued economic growth of the country. I now crave leave of this House to listen to what some may think a mundane matter, but albeit a matter which concerns the human dignity, the human rights of one of our citizens.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.47 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the things that a civilised society with a conscience has to do is to redress any wrong done to a member of the society if the society is not satisfied of the wrongdoing of the person concerned. This is the least that a civilised society can do.

Sir, I asked to speak on the adjournment on the conditions imposed on persons released after serving terms of years under detention, under the Internal Security Act. But I did say in my notice that I would confine or concentrate on the conditions that still hover around a man who was detained for 23 years and although physically free, not kept within the confines of a cell, is still subjected to constraints which other members of the society are not. And this, as I said, has gone on for 31 years. Is it not time that we asked ourselves, in all honesty and in all conscience, whether this state of affairs should continue in this society?

Mr Chia Thye Poh was detained in 1966 under the catch-all phrase that he was a threat to the stability of the country. No precise allegations, as I understand it, were levelled at him. But under this, he was detained.

In 1985, speaking in this House sometime in May, I asked the Minister for Home Affairs about the persons detained under the Internal Security Act. The Minister replying said and I quote:

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

Be it noted, Sir, that it took 19 years for the Minister for Home Affairs to come up with this allegation for the first time that Mr Chia Thye Poh was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya and was engaging in Communist united front agitation to destabilize the Government. At no time, I understand, was this allegation made and yet the man had been detained for 19 years.

Mr Chia asked, not only once but several times, that he be tried on these allegations, but he was never given this opportunity, an opportunity which any society which observes Rule of Law and believes in natural justice would have granted. But we quoting, as it were, a supposed threat to our society have not granted him this opportunity. Is it not time that we now put this right - this man whose crime, as it were, was to voice his opinions on what he thought then was wrong about our society and to detain him for that? Is it not time that we put this right and give him an opportunity to answer these allegations? I think any person with a sense of justice would say we should.

But even if we do not do that, is it really necessary that we continue to constrain him with these conditions? The last order that was made against him on 28th November 1996 requires that he does not issue public statements, address public meetings or hold office in, or take part, or in any way assist in the activities of or act as adviser to, or be a member of any organisation or association, or take part in any political activity without the prior written approval of the Director, Internal Security Department. And, secondly, that he shall not knowingly associate with anyone who has been detained.

Sir, these are civic rights which should be accorded to every citizen of Singapore. Why is Mr Chia Thye Poh still deprived of these rights, may I ask? How is he a threat to Singapore at this moment? Mr Chia Thye Poh has been accused of advocating violence. Sir, I have known him now for many, many years and I think it is very difficult to find a more peace loving man than Mr Chia Thye Poh, with his gentle manner and mode of speaking.

So, I would, in all conscience, appeal now to the Government and to this House that it is time we tried to set the record right for Mr Chia Thye Poh. Was he really a member of the Communist Party of Malaya? Did he really advocate violence? Was he all these wicked things that we say he was? I would ask the Government to consider seriously the setting up of a tribunal to consider these allegations against him and give him the opportunity that he has been clamouring all these years to answer.

Communism is no longer a threat in this country. It was a threat perhaps many years ago, but it has now receded in most countries. Why do we still hang on to this bogey of Communism and threat to our society? If it is not possible that he be given an opportunity now to answer these allegations and to confront whatever evidence that the Government can produce against him, he should at least be now spared the humiliation of having to live as an outcast in our own society. As I say, what is his crime? His crime is that he was trying to further the interest and the welfare of his fellow beings as he thought right. Is it right that we should go on punishing him? How long are we to go on punishing him? I ask the Government to consider seriously, first of all, whether it is not time now to give Mr Chia Thye Poh an opportunity to answer these allegations, and if that is not possible, to immediately release him from these conditions that still fetter him.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is not the first time that Mr Jeyaretnam has raised this question. It is as if on cue that at every Parliamentary sitting, whenever there is an occasion, like the bell rings, he will raise this question again.

He painted Mr Chia Thye Poh as if he were such an angel, a gentleman, a peace loving person. For the benefit of those Members who were not here in 1985, when my colleague answered this question, I would just like to recount a bit of the background.

Chia Thye Poh was arrested and detained in October 1966 for his involvement in the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) and the communist united front activities. There is no question that Chia Thye Poh was a member of the CPM. We have disclosures of his CPM membership from his superiors in 1968 and had confronted him with these evidence. He was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis and engage in communist united front agitation to destabilise the Government. There is no question that he had advocated the use of violence and the use of force in his speeches and statements, and the Government has cited specific instances of these speeches and statements.

Let me just quote two examples. At the 8th Annual Conference of the pro-communist Labour Party of Malaya, Perak Division, on 24th April 1966, Chia Thye Poh called for the revival of armed struggle in Singapore and Malaysia and asked the audience to emulate the Vietnamese who had resorted to armed struggle against the United States. As a result of this speech, Chia Thye Poh was prohibited from entering Malaysia permanently by the Malaysian Government in 1966. He is still banned from entering Malaysia. He again advocated militancy when speaking at the pro-communist Singapore Commercial Houses and Factory Employees' Union meeting on 26th July 1966. He called for the formation of a "worker-peasant" alliance and the launching of a struggle to topple the "reactionary regimes" and he also called that the "Tunku-Lee Kuan Yew blocs". He also urged the audience to emulate the struggle of the Vietnamese people against the Americans in Vietnam.

In October 1966, shortly before he was arrested, he and other Barisan Sosialis MPs resigned en mass from Parliament to take the struggle to the streets. He said, "We are going to strengthen our extra-Parliamentary struggle. It takes various forms, street demonstrations, protest meetings, strikes." From 1974 to 1979, while he was still under detention, he carried out his pro-communist activities by subverting some of the prison warders and getting them to distribute to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of radio broadcasts of the Communist Party of Malaya. Surely, he is not just a friend of the Voice of the Malayan Revolution, the radio station of the CPM?

On 31st August 1985, when Mr Jeyaretnam moved the motion of adjournment on Chia Thye Poh, Prof. Jayakumar, as Home Affairs Minister, distributed to Members a list of the communist united front activities in which Chia Thye Poh participated in and a list of speeches and statements made by him which advocated armed struggle. I think Members can look up the Hansard [Vol. 46, Cols. 466 - 486] and the record is there.

Chia Thye Poh has never disputed the specific statements attributed to him, even though the Government had repeatedly publicised it. Now he claims that he is innocent and we have Mr Jeyaretnam protesting his innocence. Is he really a prisoner of conscience, as claimed and adopted by the Amnesty International, and as such a gentle, peace loving person who was detained for his peaceful beliefs, as he and his supporters would have us believe?

Mr Jeyaretnam asks why did we not send him to court and try him? I think the answer is quite obvious. The Internal Security Act provides for preventive detention. If he is that innocent, as he claimed, then why did he not appeal to or appear before the Advisory Board that is set up under the ISA? He has not challenged any of the grounds of allegations of his detention before the Advisory Board since his detention in November 1966. He is legally entitled to do so. He can represent himself. He can engage a lawyer, or counsel, to represent him. Why did he not do if he is innocent? Now Mr Jeyaretnam would have us believe that we should convene a tribunal just to hear him. He has all these years to do so and yet he failed to do so. He did not want to do so. The Advisory Board is constituted by no less a person than a High Court Judge, and two prominent citizens. They are independent. They are not employees of the Government.

As I said, the ISA provides for preventive detention and we all know that there are security cases where it is not possible to secure witnesses to give evidence in court, because we know the CPM is utterly ruthless. They would intimidate and liquidate their potential witnesses. An open trial of a communist would not be possible because police officers would have to disclose the names of the witnesses and their lives would be in jeopardy. The CPM and their satellite organisations have standing instructions and directives to punish with death those who betrayed the CPM revolution. These had been carried out in Peninsular Malaya. For example, in just 12 years, between 1973 and 1985, more than 40 people were assassinated. They were police officers, Government officials and civilians. They were assassinated by the CPM.

Now Mr Jeyaretnam would want us to relax or remove the conditions. The Government has said that if Chia renounced communism or disavowed the use of force, then the Restriction Order (RO) can be lifted. But the RO is still necessary to prevent him from re-involving himself in activities prejudicial to the security of Singapore. But over the years the Government has taken a more relaxed approach. The Government decided first to release Chia Thye Poh on a suspension direction in May 1989, and subsequently put him on a Restriction Order subject to various conditions because, unlike other cases, Chia Thye Poh has not disavowed the use of force or renounced the CPM.

The Government took the step of releasing Chia Thye Poh in May 1989 to Sentosa because at that time the CPM's strength had been weakened and we knew that they were engaged in peace talks. However, we continue to be very cautious about this. Of course, the peace agreements between the CPM and the Malaysian and Thai authorities have been signed but we must bear in mind that the CPM organisation is still there. Although it is disarmed, it is still intact. So its ability to conduct subversive underground activities and united front activities of the type that Chia Thye Poh was involved in is still a potential problem.

Nevertheless, as I said, we have relaxed the conditions and now there are only two conditions imposed on him. He is free to seek employment and he is free to travel abroad. As you have read in the newspapers, he has got his passport and he is going overseas. The only thing he cannot do are the two conditions which are aimed at preventing him from re-involving himself in activities that would be detrimental to our interest. These two conditions will still be necessary because it will enable the ISD to ensure that Chia Thye Poh does not work with individuals or any organisations which may have the propensity to be involved in or be made use of for subversive activities.

The Government would rely on the advice of the professionals' assessment, ie, the ISD officers, on whether or not he continues to pose a security threat to Singapore if these restrictions are lifted.

But, Sir, ultimately, the lifting of these restrictions would depend on Chia Thye Poh himself. If he renounces communism and disavows the use of force and behaves himself, it is likely that the ISD will favourably consider recommending the lifting of restrictions. Not because he is a political threat to the Government. Chia Thye Poh seems to say that these restrictions were enforced because he is a threat to the Government. He is a political risk. No, not at all. Even the opposition has said that he is politically irrelevant. So as far as politics is concerned, he is irrelevant and he is not a threat. But the Restriction Orders are necessary to prevent him from reverting to his former subversive activities.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just respond very briefly to this?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have no right to reply. But if you want to clarify the point which the Minister has made, I would allow it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister says that Mr Chia Thye Poh has not availed himself of the opportunity given to him to appear before the Advisory Board. Is the Minister aware that in proceedings before the Board, he is not allowed to see any statements or question anyone who has made any allegation against him, or produced any evidence against him? That is the only reason why he has not sought to appear before the Advisory Board.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That appears to me to be a reply. I would not allow that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Six o'clock pm to Monday, 21st July, 1997.