MR ABDUL RAZAK B AHMAD (Denial of entry into Singapore)

Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are any good reasons for denying Mr Abdul Razak b Ahmad entry into Singapore.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Abdul Razak Ahmad, a Malaysian, was expelled and banned from entering Singapore with effect from 18th November 1966, because he took part in subversive activities while studying at the Law Faculty of Singapore University.

Entry into any country is a privilege and not a right granted to foreigners. It is the view of this Government that Abdul Razak is an undesirable person who should not be granted the privilege of entering Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister say why this Order was made against him? Was it not because he was part of a group asking for greater academic freedom in the universities in those days?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said in my answer, he has engaged in subversive activities. Abdul Razak was actively involved in the Nanyang University students' agitation for the restoration of the Nanyang University Students' Union and also in Ngee Ann College's agitation in 1966 for the college to be made a full-fledged university. This resulted in several processions, demonstrations and indeed a violent clash between students and the riot Police.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister of State say whether a demand for greater academic freedom in the universities is considered by the Government to be a threat to the security of Singapore?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it was not just a matter of debate about more freedom. As I have said in my answer, there were demonstrations, processions and fights. So it is a different thing altogether.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong with them in maintaining their protests by way of demonstrations, if it was necessary?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam is in this House, using our time to espouse the cause of a foreigner who, in 1966, participated in certain acts which were a destabilising factor in Singapore, and after that he also had in several ways made several unfriendly remarks. And indeed in 1986, he instigated and led a protest against Singapore over the then Israeli President Chaim Herzog's visit.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: May I ask the Minister whether Abdul Razak applied to the Government to review the Order? Has he himself applied? The second question is whether the Government would consider, in view of the changed circumstances, allowing him entry on conditions?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: After the ban was made in 1966, in fact, he was allowed in Singapore on four occasions for various reasons. He did apply to ask for the ban to be lifted, but the Government in 1984 turned it down.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Would the Minister consider, in view of the changed circumstances, whether it is still a risk to let him come in?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: He has not applied. If he applies, we can consider it. But in terms of what he has done in 1966, the reason for the ban is fully justifiable.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister explain why another student, Mr Chan Kian Hui who was also sent out of Singapore, had that Order revoked after a month's time, when Mr Razak has been prevented from coming in all these years?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: If Mr Jeyaretnam files a question, I will give a reply.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It was mentioned that Abdul Razak was arrested for agitating the conversion of Ngee Ann College to a full-fledged university. May I ask what is wrong with that? Does it affect the security of a country?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have mentioned, it is not just about making a point for raising the status of the College, but what he did was he was involved in certain agitations which resulted in processions, demonstrations, fights and riots. And he is a foreigner too.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister whether he was prosecuted for these riots and fights? Why was he not prosecuted?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: One wonders why Mr Jeyaretnam is spending so much time of the House espousing his cause. Is there some interest?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I remind the Minister that it is not for him to ask me questions. We know that banishment or prohibition orders against several other people have all been revoked or taken back. Why is this man in particular?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, surely the circumstances must be different. Just because some orders have been revoked does not mean that we must do it for this man.