Hansard, 1988-06-01

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parlia- ment to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu) - from 9th to 14th June, 1988. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 27th May, 1988 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. 28th May, 1988 Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question (25th May, 1988), "That this House -

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for permitting me to participate in this debate. Sir, in this current debate all Singaporeans must answer two questions. Firstly, it is to ask are we in charge or are we not in charge of running our own country? Secondly, do we want to become another Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nicaragua or Panama? Sir, the answer to the first question must be a resounding yes, and to the second question, a definite no. So far, the reaction from the majority of Singaporeans, notwithstanding the Member for Potong Pasir, has been one of anger, specially so because a friendly country wants to meddle in our internal affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, interference, whether it is as a result of an errant diplomat, or Government policy cannot and should not be tolerated. Sir, I suppose it becomes the work of an errant diplomat only when it is exposed, otherwise, Sir, it would be simply unknown "policy". The assurance given by the State Department, notwithstanding, I am not convinced that the Hendrickson affair is the work of an errant or rogue or over-zealous diplomat. From all facts available, it is the work of a trained intelligence officer. Sir, I am even prepared to accept the assurance of the State Department, but knowing the unwieldy Government apparatus in the United States, where more often than not, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and the intense rivalry and jealousy between Government agencies - State Department, CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council, etc, things however can happen. It has happened before. One agency tries to do or outdo the other. Sir, the American track record for direct and indirect political interference the world over is also very difficult to ignore. Sir, I would like to refer to an article which appeared in the Straits Times on Wednesday, 25th May, entitled "US think-tank accuses State Department of bullying". Mr Roger A. Brooks, Director of the Asian Studies Centre of the Heritage Foundation, in an article headlined "State Department Reflex: Beating up on America's friends" published in the bulletin accused the United States Government of being, "the neighbourhood bully in East Asia." And he even goes on to say, "that the State Department treats Singapore as an enemy rather than as a close friend that it is." Sir, liberalization at the urging of the US Government has taken place and is taking place both in South Korea and Taiwan. What we read in the papers now is frequent strikes and riots in South Korea, and one can imagine what the situation would be after the Seoul Olympic Games and riots are even reported recently in Taiwan. Sir, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, are close friends of the United States. One may begin to ask why is the United States, particularly the United States Human Rights Group, trying to destabilize three of its close friends. Are there any other motives apart from the lofty motives of human rights, liberalization, democratization, etc. Like the Member for Whampoa, I also would like to ask, is there an economic motive to destabilize the successful economies of Singapore, Taiwan and Korea? It is not necessary to destabilize Hong Kong as 1997 is approaching very fast. I hope, Sir, our Ministers will look at the interference from this angle too! In this respect, it may be useful to widen and be more liberal with our trading contacts. Maybe the Minister for Trade and Industry should now lead more trade delegations to our non-traditional trading partners, like the Soviet Union, Eastern bloc, as I indicated during the debate on the budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, the United Nations Charter spells out in no uncertain terms that each member is free to determine its own system of Government, whatever its ideological persuasion. Mr Brezhnev's doctrine of extended sovereignty saw Soviet tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia. Vietnam's "socialist responsibility" saw the setting up of the puppet Heng Samrin regime in Cambodia. Sir, how we govern Singapore is entirely for Singaporeans alone to decide. Whether we govern Singapore with ISA or not is again a matter for Singaporeans only to decide. Sir, it is not the job of self-appointed vigilantes, whether be they in Washington, Beijing, Moscow, and least of all, in Canberra, Sir, to tell us what we should do. We cannot be bought or sold. Today, it may be just be an innocent invitation for dinner, tea, and one is asked to stand for election and form a credible Opposition to the ruling Government. Tomorrow, it may be a case of paying $1,000 for each vote. And in no time, Sir, as a result of vote buying and influence by foreigners, we may have in this Chamber various sections - one section may be a KGB-lobby, another may be a group of CIA-funded MPs. We must not forget MI6. Finally, we may have another group voicing the views of the PRC. Is this what we want? Sir, this is not an imaginary illustration. This is a fact of life in some countries and if we do not take stern care and corrective action, this can become a reality in this House. Sir, this is what this whole debate is about. It is not an exercise in American bashing, as many people tend to think. The Government's message and Singaporean's anger have a broader dimension. We have an obligation to inform our people to be vigilant at all times. Mr Speaker, Sir, the mass media, human rights groups and other busybody interest groups have been very critical of us and of our actions largely because we do not behave as meek and mild as natives should. The lashings at Singapore are not only well orchestrated and identical, but sometimes even couched in the same language. The barrage comes principally from the western world. Sir, the communist world is silent, hopefully to catch the Singapore fruit should it drop from the western tree. The Third World has not joined in the stoning of Singapore and the less friendly among the Third World countries must take this to mean as a punishment for Singapore for being naively and stupidly pro-American. Even in the western world, Sir, the anti-Singapore rhetoric comes from specific disgruntled quarters who basically have an axe to grind. Sir, the anti-Singapore brigade, the pro-communists, human rights groups and self-appointed vigilantes, we should not bother too much about them. The Government and the people can deal with this handful of nobodies who fancy themselves as somebodies. Sir, in all our encounters with nuisance makers, friendly governments have adopted a correct neutrality, whatever their private views over our Government's actions. This conduct is consistent with the United Nations Charter apart from fundamental norms of decent international relations. But these arrests brought something special this time. I am referring to the confluence of pressures against Singapore. These are not merely coincidental. Firstly, Sir, we have the Catholic Church organizing special masses, not for Catholics this time but for political detainees, implying the detainees were victims of Government persecution. These masses were held regularly. Sir, last week the Prime Minister in this House revealed about the understanding reached between the Vatican and the Singapore Government regarding relations between Church and State. Last Sunday, Sir, there were orders of the Archbishop, Gregory Yong that these services be stopped, which suggests that these things can be switched on and switched off with considerable ease. Who is orchestrating this, and why? That is the question Singaporeans must ask. Secondly, Sir, the Singapore Government in no way publicly implicated the United States or any other Government with the activity of the detainees. Despite this, the Straits Times on 23rd April carried a public statement from a spokesman of the United States Embassy in Singapore on the arrest - the first time an American Embassy spokesman had made public comments on ISA detentions. I quote: 'We are concerned, [he said] at their arrest following their public statement of those allegations. We are also concerned about the reported detention of the attorney who participated in the defence. It is our hope that the Government of Singapore will move quickly to clarify the circumstances of their detention and make available results of the investigation into their charges.' Sir, this is the first time the United States Government had departed from its past consistent practice of not making public its views on ISA arrests. Why did the United States do it, Sir? Is this not implicit interference? Are the Americans pressurising the Singapore Government to do basic explaining to our people? Secondly, Sir, there is no suggestion that the Government should talk these matters over privately as between friends. Thirdly, the concern is not over Singapore Government but over presumed wrongdoing of the Government. Fourthly, there is a request to make available the results of the investigation into these charges. Sir, one must assume the results must be made available to the public, not secretly to the United States Government. Sir, all this was before Patrick Seong made a statutory declaration which gave the Government the lead into the Hendrickson and Francis Seow affair. Sir, then another odd thing happened on the 30th April when the Straits Times reported that our Australian friends also decided to tweak the Singapore Government's nose publicly. Mind you, Sir, Australia is also a good friend. It reported Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as saying that his government was concerned over allegations that the public confession of the detainees "were false and the result of coercion and mistreatment while under detention". The Senator then went on to state publicly his "government's concern about the use of arbitrary detention powers under the Internal Security Act." Sir, there are two things to note about the Senator's public lecture on how the Singapore Government should conduct its affairs. One cannot recollect a similar lecture from the Australian government about the unacceptability of the ISA when Australian troops and their families were stationed in Singapore or was it convenient to have the ISA when Australian lives were involved. Second, this lecture on political ethics was delivered publicly before the Australian government had the opportunity to seek clarification from our High Commissioner in Canberra. Sir, the Australian track record on human rights is well known and that Australians have violated human rights obligations, discriminated against the aborigines and the aborigines are not provided sufficient protection of rights in social, medical health, housing, education and cultural matters, is very well known. The plight and the position of the 250,000 aborigines is an open secret and the Singapore Government has not found it necessary to express its regret to anyone, let alone the Australian High Commissioner in Singapore or even to an Australian tourist. But the Australian government finds it necessary to comment on our internal affairs. Sir, I am confident the Minister for Foreign Affairs would have suitably responded. Here I just want to quote what the Malaysian Prime Minister had to say regarding Australia. This was publicized in the Straits Times, 20th May, "Hands-off, Mahathir warns Australia." I quote, Sir, from the Malaysian Prime Minister: 'Australians give themselves too much airs and think they should advise all the governments in Southeast Asia on how to run their countries. When Australia was at the stage of Malaysia's present development, you solved your aborigines problem by simply shooting them ...'. Sir, I do not blame the Malaysian Prime Minister for his outburst. I turn to the Committee of 100 for the Freedom of Singapore in Australia. Again, this group of self-appointed vigilantes has been condemning the Singapore Government, taking advertisements against Singapore, all because they feel that human rights have been violated. To them, may I suggest they have a bigger cause in Australia to look after than the detainees in Singapore. Sir, human rights, I believe, is a right to have a job, a right to decent housing, a right to education and a right not to be mugged while walking in the streets. To all these busybody vigilantes, I ask: what rights are there in their own countries? There are enough problems in their own countries. So I suggest to them: please go and keep your house in order before you try to bring ours down. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I might add that this whole episode may be a blessing in disguise. Maybe a few lessons could be learnt. Firstly, Sir, the world and the new generation of Singaporeans know how the second generation leadership thinks and acts. It has been a useful, though unwelcome, test. Foreigners may now know how to conduct their affairs with Singapore leadership based on mutual trust, mutual respect and confidence. This basic lesson cannot be over-emphasized. It will serve us and our friends well, maybe for the next 20-30 years. Secondly, Sir, younger Singaporeans should know that our prosperity and security is not a luxury. It has been earned and therefore must be guarded stoutly and defended politically at all costs and unashamedly too. The cynics among us should realize this too instead of opting for the easier and more popular approach of pandering to foreigners and kow-towing to their ideals. Sir, these two lessons are worth remembering by all Singaporeans. I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Potong Pasir put forth a challenge to the Member for Braddell Heights and I. Are we in a position to meet the families of the detainees? This point was answered by the Member for Braddell Heights and, also I believe, by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. But in the reportage in the papers today I noticed that the question was left hanging. So for the record I shall like to take up this point if I may have your indulgence, Sir. As a Member of Parliament, we meet all Singaporeans, particularly our constituents. And should there be any family of detainees who are my constituents, I am more than pleased to make time to see them. In the course of our work we see families of criminal law detainees, we see family members of those who have transgressed the law and I believe this includes those who have transgressed national security. If the Member for Potong Pasir will recall, when I supported him in the motion last year on a similar topic, I voiced concern for the families of those who were detained. As a family man, I certainly share the worry and the plight of these families. I think the Member was playing to the gallery when he brought up the plight of the family members of those who were detained. The question the Member has to ask really is: does not the fate of 2.6 million Singaporeans deserve his highest priority?

Mr Speaker, Sir, any diplomat in Singapore is free to meet anyone he pleases, whether he is an Opposition member, whether he is a "dissident", an ordinary Singaporean, member of the governing party, in the course of his work to find out how Singaporeans feel about particular issues, subjects or even how they feel about the Government. Nobody denies that right of a diplomat to do this. But as you would have heard last week from the Minister for Trade and Industry who has given you a very vivid account of what Hendrickson did and from the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the specific transgressions of Mr Hendrickson, you will know that what Mr Hendrickson did is definitely not the norms of a diplomatic conduct that he has pursued. We feel, and I feel particularly, and I have no doubt that Hendrickson and his superiors did wrong. They were offside regardless of the denials of the State Department officials or the US Embassy spokesmen here. In the two Government statements that we issued, we have been very restrained in our language. We have chosen the words very carefully and the Cabinet has spent many hours poring over the paragraphs that you read in the newspapers. We have chosen appropriate words to expressour anger and our sentiments and we have done so in very measured tones. We simply asked for Hendrickson to be withdrawn. We did not expel him. But the next time another diplomat were to do what Mr Hendrickson did, then he will be expelled. The US spokesman in Washington as well as the Embassy spokesman here had denied that Hendrickson did wrong. Just last Wednesday in Washington, the US State Department's spokesman, Mr Charles Redman, repeated this denial, and he said: 'As we have said repeatedly both publicly and privately, Mr Lambertson, Mr Snyder, Mr Helmer and Mr Hendrickson [the individuals cited in the Singapore Government statements] were engaged in normal diplomatic activity in meeting with Singaporeans in and outside of the government.' This is definitely not the case and we have repeatedly said so. We have repeatedly shown how this diplomat and his superiors have interfered in our domestic affairs. The US State Department's spokesman, Mr Charles Redman, has not been able to pinpoint which aspect of our charges is untrue. Mr Charles Redman went on to say: 'What our embassy officers do in Singapore is no different from the normal diplomatic contacts of our diplomats in every country of the world.' And listen to this: 'It is also no different than the conduct of Singaporean diplomats in the United States.' I would like to ask Mr Redman to quote me an incident where any of our Singapore diplomats in Washington went around identifying disgruntled Americans and urged them to form a party or stand for election against the US President or US government. We will then rein that officer in and tell him that we do not condone or permit such kind of activity. Indeed I will be astounded if Mr Robert Chua, the First Secretary in our mission in Washington, who was asked to come back in retaliation, went round cultivating a group of advocates and instigating them to form a new party to contest the US presidential elections because neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is fit to rule. Sir, in diplomacy, as in physics, there are certain fundamental laws which govern the behaviour of bodies. Some are passed down by tradition, practice and convention. Some are written in agreements such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, told this House last week about Article 41(1) of the Vienna Convention, and to refresh your memory, I quote: 'Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.' Notice the last sentence. It is a particularly important and fundamental principle which underlies all diplomatic behaviour. Once this basic principle is upset, then chaos will reign, and in chaotic conditions small nations like Singapore would be more vulnerable than larger countries. We are therefore most upset and angry that Hendrickson has transgressed the role of a diplomat and we protest very strongly about his behaviour and that of his superiors in this episode. Sir, time and again, we have reiterated that we are no pushover, no soft, pliable state or target for foreigners, whether they are government officials, foreign press or interest groups, to manipulate. We shall continue to repeat this until all foreign nations and groups understand it and take us on our own terms. We will not yield to any outside pressure on us to change Singapore into their own image. We always demonstrate the courage of our convictions. That is why other nations take us very seriously when we speak. When it is necessary for us to speak up, Singapore has always done so. When the US held the line in Vietnam at the expense of the economy and the American lives, giving non-communist South-east Asia a decade or more of peace and stability to focus on economic development, we appreciated the US sacrifice, and we openly said so. We are also one of the most vocal supporters of the United States presence in Southeast Asia because we believe that the United States has a strategic role to play in the region to counter the growing Soviet influence in the Asia Pacific region. We appreciate and support the US role in the regional balance of power. So we are on the same side of the ideological divide. But having said that, let it also be clearly understood that Singapore is nobody's client state. There are no US bases, no US troops present in Singapore. We never were a US colony. The US is and will continue to be a friend. But no country can afford to tolerate interference in its internal affairs, even by a friend. Why then does a friend want to interfere in our domestic affairs? Is it because Singapore can be made into a little America? Americans are proud of their political system. From the time the very first pilgrims fled religious persecution in Europe and landed in what is today New England, Americans have considered themselves not just another people or just another nation but as "a city on the hill"; a moral exemplar for the world. There is thus a tendency for some Americans to wish to intervene in the internal affairs of some other countries and to make them more like America. The temptation, Sir, is perhaps more strong in Singapore than elsewhere in Asia because we speak English, because we have a relatively well-developed infrastructure with high-rise buildings, not unlike those found in American cities and because we are an open society. American newspapers, American magazines, American TV programmes and music, not to mention American fast-food chains, all are freely available in Singapore. But despite these similarities, we are very different. No country indeed can totally model itself on another and Singapore does not have the cultural, historical or economic base for an American approach to life and politics. This is a fact that is often overlooked by some well-meaning Americans whose good intentions are not necessarily matched by a strong understanding of the special needs and problems of other societies. Sir, one of the most important differences between Singapore and America is the approach to politics and government. America was founded by people fleeing persecution by governments in Europe. It was perhaps therefore natural for them to be suspicious of government. They still tend to think of government as, at best, a necessary evil. The role of the government is only to defend the country against external aggression and to protect individuals in the exercise of certain rights endowed by the Almighty, like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to own property. Of course, no modern, industrial society can be really governed so simply or by a government that is really weak. But such beliefs have moulded American political culture. Gradually crystallizing over more than 200 years of history, the political culture has come to provide a political homogenity that stabilizes and holds America together despite its cultural and ethnic diversity. It provides an underlying strength to the political system and endows the system with its essential cohesiveness. It allows American political institutions to operate despite being daily beseiged by a congenitally suspicious press and importuned by a bewildering variety of ethnic, economic, regional and social groups, in whose clash and clamour many Americans believe is to be found the only truest and only form of democratic politics. But, Sir, this is their system, and we respect their right to believe in it. Against America's more than 200 years of history and societal development, Singapore has barely 23 years. Singaporeans must decide for themselves whether such an American-style politics would suit our cultural traditions, whether our more fluid and delicate social fabric can withstand the resulting pressures and centrifugal forces, and whether a government so weakened can provide the basic services needed to make our society function. I say it would not. American and other foreign diplomats must therefore bear these national differences in mind when operating in Singapore. It is tempting but incorrect to transpose American values to Singapore. In contrast to America, we have no politics of conflict, no adversarial press. Instead, we seek to build a political and social system based on consensus and harmony. Today it is interference by some US officials. The next time officials from another great power may be tempted to meddle in our domestic affairs. Then, will Singapore become the playground for foreign manipulators, as they all compete for a stake in our strategic position astride the junction of air, sea and communications routes? Sir, it is not just some US officials that tried to interfere in our domestic affairs. Some Americans, Australians and human rights organizations and foreign press have also tried to meddle in our domestic affairs. They were especially vocal in criticizing us for detaining the 22 Marxist conspirators last year. I would like to commend these organizations and people to read the thoughtful article mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, the article by Dr Russell Kirk called "The Illusion of Human Rights". Dr Kirk cautions that "we ought to beware of supposing that all civil social benefits which US citizens enjoy are 'natural' rights, universally applicable". He asked why other nations should be expected to achieve in human rights what is imperfectly attained in the United States, when they lack US political traditions, long established US social institutions, and US material resources. Dr Kirk aptly states that: 'the extent and exercise of civil rights varies greatly from one culture or political community to another, because civil rights are the products of the historical experience of particular peoples. There never has existed a universal code of civil liberties. So to impose an American pattern of civil rights upon a society of very different origins, say, upon a Muslim state for example, would break down the old pattern of justice without effectively establishing American ways.' Indeed, Dr Kirk's prescience was remarkable. Some of you might have read about an island called Zanzibar, part of Tanzania. Zanzibar is situated in the south-eastern part of Africa. It is an island off Tanzania. On the island of Zanzibar itself, 97% of its people are Muslims. And on the state of Tanzania, 60% are Muslims. In mid-May 1988 in Zanzibar, an influential woman politician by the name of Mrs Sofia Kowawa said that Islamic law provisions on polygamy and female inheritance should be amended to give women equal rights with men, and this sparked off riots that left one dead, 11 injured and more than 150 arrested. This shows how destructive the impact of imposing an alien system on a traditional society. And that remark was not made by an outsider. It was made by an influential woman politician of that country. Indeed, Sir, there is no universal code of civil liberties. For example, the right to trial by jury, so highly prized in America and in UK, has never existed in France. No one, however, thinks that France is thus more backward in human rights. In the French system moreover, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent. So do Asiawatch amd Amnesty International make a fuss over this? Yet they raise a hue and cry when we in Singapore operate a different system which is constitutionally and legally correct by our standards. Human rights, Sir, are understood to entail corresponding civil duties. And the most important of which is the duty to maintain the reign of law by which such human rights are given substance. So do our foreign critics even stress this point when they defend the Marxist conspirators? Why did they not urge those who are detained to take the path of legitimate political dissent and enter politics without the need to conspire and infiltrate lawful organizations? When they protest about Francis Seow's detention, why did they not express regret over his actions in seeking foreign backing and asylum before he enters politics? When Francis Seow told Amnesty International and Asiawatch that three of his clients - William Yap, Wong Souk Yee and Lim Li Kok - had told him that they were not tortured, why did they not report this instead of making wild and vague allegations of torture? Sir, human rights may be vaguely defined, but surely it is not so vague that Mr Hendrickson cannot understand it and got it confused with our legal and constitutional political developments. In the State Department's 1987 Country Report on Singapore, on Human Rights, Mr Hendrickson showed how anxious he was to change the nature of Singapore's society. On page 797 of the Report, the last two paragraphs, he wrote: 'The Government imposed severe restrictions on the circulation of the Far Eastern Economic Review, The Asian Wall Street Journal, and Asiaweek in 1987 for 'engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore.' The Domestic press operates under longstanding, informal limits on its activities. The ruling party's political and economic management record provides a continuing source of popular political support. However, in recent years human rights-related developments, including the disqualification from Parliament of an outspoken opposition leader, the tightening of controls on the Law Society, curbs on the foreign press, arrests under the ISA of grass-roots activists, and proposals for electing parliamentary candidates by 'teams', have also served to reinforce the PAP's political dominance, which had begun to show signs of erosion following the last general election.' That is what was written. Sir, I ask, how could anyone consider the restrictions on the foreign press or the offshore foreign press a human rights problem? Which aspect of human rights is being breached? There are 400 copies of the Asian Wall Street Journal, 500 copies of the Asiaweek and a few thousand copies of the Far Eastern Economic Review available. And in this age of the photocopier and the facsimile machine, thousands more can be legally made, and we have changed the law to allow that to be legal. It is not a crime to read these publications. How could then it be a breach of human rights? In what way is the disqualification from Parliament of J.B. Jeyaretnam a human rights issue when the disqualification was by operation of law for a conviction which was properly imposed by the Courts? In fact, Mr Jeyaretnam brought upon the problem himself. The original sentence on him did not disqualify him from Parliament. He was dissatisfied with the sentence, and he appealed. The Government did not appeal. On appeal, the judge fined him $5,000 and sentenced him to one month's jail. That caused him to lose his seat. What has the amendment to the Law Society to tighten professional discipline got to do with human rights? The amendments are to ensure that the Law Society Council has honourable men to lead them. And this will improve standards. Is this against their interest? By what logic is the electing of Team MPs a human rights problem? The Team MP law is a political development for the long-term interest of Singapore. It ensures the multi-racial character of our Parliament. And we have had Select Committee hearings on this, openly televised. The majority of those who wrote to the Select Committee have supported this Team MP proposal. So in what way is it a violation of human rights? Sir, on page 800 of the Report, Hendrickson also repeated J.B. Jeyaretnam's false and malicious accusation that the Government has been interfering in the judicial process in politically related cases. He blandly stated that the Government denied these allegations of executive interference of the judiciary. But he ignored the week-long full open televised hearings of the Committee of Privileges of Parliament when the Chief Justice himself was subjected to questions, and when these accusations were completely exposed and demolished. No proof was presented by anybody, any interested party, including Jeyaretnam himself who made these allegations, to show that executive interference existed. Why did Mr Hendrickson not report this? What was he so biased for? It was to prepare the ground for human rights groups like Asia watch and for the offshore press to beat the drum to help the Opposition work the issues up. Indeed, from Mr Francis Seow's statutory declaration, we know how Hendrick- son and his colleague have fronted for Asiawatch. The bias was also reflected on page 805 of the Human Rights Report. It says: 'Representatives of Amnesty International and other human rights groups are not allowed to visit Singapore in an official capacity. In July an Amnesty International-sponsored committee visited Singapore in the wake of the ISA detentions but was not granted interviews with government officials. The committee consisted of a member of Amnesty International's International Secretariat and an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India. An Asia Watch team also visited Singapore in December. A scheduled meeting between the team and Singaporean officials was cancelled when the Far Eastern Economic Review printed a letter from Asia Watch condemning the ISA detentions. The Government said the letter showed that Asia Watch had a closed mind about the situation in Singapore.' This, again, is not correct. A senior official from the Ministry of Home Affairs met two Amnesty International officials on 17th June 1987. The statement that a scheduled meeting between the Asia Watch team and Singapore officials was cancelled when the Far Eastern Economic Review printed a letter from Asia Watch condemning the ISA detentions is also not totally accurate. When Asia Watch had said that it was sending a team to Singapore, the Government of Singapore indicated that the officials would meet with the team. But before any meeting could take place, Asia Watch published its conclusions in the Far Eastern Economic Review, thereby rendering the meeting redundant. So, when Hendrickson was applying such an elastic definition of human rights, I suspect he was also using it as a very convenient cover to instigate and manipulate disgrunted Singaporeans. Otherwise, when Patrick Seong told Hendrickson about his detained clients, why did Hendrickson show so little interest in it? In any case, who is Hendrickson to pass judgment on us? Hendrickson had mistaken Singapore for the Philippines, where he served for a while. We are not a client state or an ally who cannot afford to break off and keep our distance. Sir, what is right and good for one country may not be totally applicable to other different political systems or societies. We do not sit in judgment on other countries and issue report cards on their human rights situations. We merely seek the right to live and govern ourselves free from foreign interference. We desire neither to export our moral standards to others, nor to have foreign values imposed upon us. As a member of the second generation leadership, Sir, I must stress that we will not accept any foreign meddling in our domestic affairs, and we resent it when they do. Indeed, I am particularly saddened and dismayed that we should start off our relationship with the United States under such inauspicious circumstance. We have stated that we wish to put the Hendrickson affair behind us after the investigation of Seow's accounts is completed, and to resume normal and cordial relations with the US. We must make it clear, however, that this relationship must be based on mutual trust and respect and nobody should take our friendship for granted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nine detainees chose to issue their joint statement when I was away in Venice on Monday, 18th April. Mr Goh Chok Tong was Acting Prime Minister and he dealt with the matter. He informed me of his decision. I agreed with it. The matter had to be investigated and a Commission of Inquiry appointed to look into their accusations that they had been ill-treated and forced to admit to fabrications. Sir, since 1985, the First Deputy Prime Minister and my younger colleagues have taken all the major decisions. I state my views but have not vetoed any decision that they have made. However, as Prime Minister, I take full responsibility for all the decisions that were taken, including the re-arrest of the eight detainees, the arrest of Patrick Seong, the request to withdraw Mr E. Mason Hendrickson, and the arrest of Francis Seow. For the record, I shall re-state the points made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, namely, that Hendrickson and the State Department officials, Lambertson and Snyder, did wrong. They interfered in our domestic politics. The rules of international law governing the rights and duties, the privileges and immunities of diplomats are clearly laid down in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 411 (1). I read that Article: 'Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.' Hendrickson and his colleagues have violated this fundamental rule of international law in four specific ways. First, when Hendrickson cultivated disgruntled Singaporeans with a view to encouraging them in their anti-government political activities. Second, when Hendrickson told Patrick Seong that lawyers should contest elections against the Government because they would vote against the PAP in view of the Law Society's experience with the Select Committee's hearings on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, and because lawyers were disgruntled, articulate and enjoyed a professional status. A superior of Hendrickson from the State Department was present at this meeting and remained silent. By remaining silent, he lent weight to Hendrickson's activities. Third, when a State Department official at the meeting with Francis Seow in Washington DC in December 1986 supported and encouraged Seow to contest the elections as an opposition candidate and reinforced this by criticizing the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act. Seow left Washington with the impression that if the need should ever arise, he had friends in the State Department who would help him secure asylum in the US. Fourth, when Hendrickson told Francis Seow that he was the best person to lead Opposition candidates and encouraged him to recruit more young professionals to join him in forming a more effective opposition in Parliament. Sir, the question was how to handle the problem. The US government would have preferred that we settle this problem in quiet discussions with them and arrange for a quiet withdrawal of Mr Hendrickson. This was not possible. Patrick Seong had not previously been detained as a member of the Marxist conspiracy in May 1987. He was arrested for the first time on 19th April this year, because surveillance showed that he had egged on and brought about the publication of the joint statement. The ISD also suspected that, in doing so, he had acted in concert with foreign groups. The question was: why was it done so many months after their release from detention, and what was the objective? By Thursday, 28th April, investigations disclosed that the object of the joint statement was not to press their allegations of ill-treatment but to make political propaganda and to damage the Government before the general elections. The timing showed it was a political blow, timed to cause confusion and gather more votes before the next elections. The re-arrested detainees have sworn statutory declarations reaffirming that all they had told the ISD and what they had said on TV were true. But they disagreed with the interpretation the ISD put on their statements. Their shift away from their collective accusations in the joint statement made the Commission of Inquiry inappropriate. Of the eight, only one re-arrested detainee still alleges ill-treatment, Teo Soh Lung, whose brother had filed a police report. In a Commission of Inquiry, she can make general accusations without discharging the burden of proof, which is on her. In a court of law, the burden of proof of these delayed charges of torture and ill-treatment is with the accuser in a criminal prosecution, or the plaintiff in a civil action. The Cabinet therefore decided against proceeding with a Commission of Inquiry. Meanwhile, Patrick Seong had disclosed his links with Hendrickson. The Government had to explain to Singaporeans that the detention of Patrick Seong was not an arbitrary act of a capricious and irrational government and that, in fact, it was a properly exercised power under the ISA. Patrick Seong was a Catholic social worker, not a Marxist. He was not arrested in May 1987, although he was working together with them. His arrest in 1988 and the results of his interrogation had to be made public. Moreover, his evidence implicated Francis Seow as the main figure whom Hendrickson had cultivated. We had sufficient facts to warrant Francis Seow's arrest and interrogation. We also had to request for Hendrickson's early withdrawal so as to break his contacts with Singaporeans he had been cultivating. We waited until Francis Seow had appeared before the High Court for the habeas corpus proceedings for two clients on Friday, 6th May, and then detained him. Then we gave the US State Department an aide memoire, our press statement and a letter from me to the Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz. We issued the press statement 15 hours later. Mr Speaker, Sir, we knew that Francis Seow's arrest would attract widespread publicity in the West. It would be misinterpreted as the arrest of a person who was an outspoken critic of the Government and who as a lawyer was simply acting as counsel for two persons in habeas corpus proceedings. We had to act. After interrogations, Francis Seow swore his statutory declaration which we released on Friday, 20th May. This declaration confirmed that what Hendrickson and certain State Department officials had done was wrong. Their actions breached the Vienna Convention governing diplomatic practice. We made our point to the US government in moderate terms. We did not and do not want to press our point until there is a rupture in bilateral relations. Let me add, however, Mr Speaker, that this is not the first time that officials of foreign powers have interfered in Singapore politics, nor will it be the last time. Indeed, several powers are much better placed than the Americans to use Singaporeans, especially Chinese and Malay Singaporeans, for subversion. For instance, some first generation Chinese Singaporeans, including several millionaires born in China, had given willing support to the CPM and to the Chinese Communist Party. We had many such cases in the 1960's right up to the 1970's. It was only after the destruction of the Gang of Four, and our being on the same side as the People's Republic of China's leadership under Deng Xiao-ping in resisting Vietnamese aggression in Cambodia, only after that, have such activities abated. The Soviet Union is not well placed. Perhaps just as well. They have little knowledge of Singapore society. But in the 1970's that did not stop Moscow Narodny Bank from losing several hundred million dollars lent to Chinese merchants, real estate developers, and other businessmen. It was an expensive lesson to learn about Chinese Singaporeans who were business leaders and could become what in intelligence parlance is called "agents of influence" - to just generally affect public opinion. Sir, my colleagues, the second generation leaders were astounded and angry that a superpower whom they have accepted and treated as a very close friend should have intervened to try to influence the course of political events just when they were about to take over. I suppose they interpret it as distrust of them. I understand their feelings. We have to register our protest. But my older colleagues, Mr Rajaratnam and Mr Barker, and I, take a more philosophical, if cynical, view of such acts. So we register our protest in a way that does not damage the fundamentals in our relationship with the US. Put simply, the US role in the Western Pacific is vital to the security and stability of non -Communist Asia, and therefore it is very much in Singapore's national interests. My colleagues and I have well established strong anti-colonial, anti-imperialist credentials. We are nobody's lackeys. Over the years we have carefully calculated and re-calculated our interests - our interests as a society, as a nation, as a distinct community in Southeast Asia. And we have concluded that the US is a force for the good of the region and the Pacific. Sir, my younger colleagues, are in a somewhat different position. Rajaratnam, Barker and I, we do not have to prove ourselves. When we speak at conferences of the Non-Aligned Movement or at the Commonwealth or in the UN and state our stand that the policies of America and Western Europe are conducive for peace and stability and help the economic progress and prosperity of the developing nations, only a few client states of the Soviet Union, like Cuba, used to denounce us as running dogs and lackeys of the Americans. But the Cubans have stopped doing this. They must have changed their minds. Now it is the Vietnamese who berate us for having served the American imperialists during the Vietnam War. But the vast majority of our fellow members in the Non-Aligned Movement, in the Commonwealth, and in the UN, know that when Singapore representatives stand and speak, they speak their own minds. We get no military aid, no economic aid, from America or from Western Europe. They know that the views we expound are consistent views at all international forums and that these views spring from our convictions. Therefore, we are taken seriously, even when they disagreed with us. Now a less acute issue arose between Singapore and the US in February this year. You remember that the US President cancelled GSP for Singapore and the three other Asian NICs. My younger colleagues felt very strongly about this. They felt that because of their readiness to accept American good faith, they had been taken for a ride and treated shabbily. They protested, and public denunciations followed. I happened to meet Mr Daryl Arnold, the US Ambassador, whom I consider a good Ambassador of the US to Singapore. He put his country's case strongly across but he was and is always fair and straightforward in his dealings with Singapore Ministers and with me. He was upset by the strong language used by the NTUC, and spoke to me candidly. I asked for a copy of the letter. On 22nd February, I wrote a note to all Cabinet Ministers stating my views. This was an internal circulation. The points I made are as relevant in the case of our dispute over Hendrickson as in the GSP. We should take our long-term basic interests first and not harm them when we protest against unwarranted American interference. I will read this because it was made before the Hendrickson affair, and state and express my position then, and now: 'I watched with uneasiness [this is 22nd February] SBC's report on our NTUC leaders protesting against US withdrawal of our GSP. A number of speakers used language reminiscent of the 1950's and 60's when anti- American imperialist rhetoric was very strong, when we were a part of the Communist United Front. We have constantly to bear in mind that xenophobia, [which means, suspicion of foreigners] especially against whites, is deeply embedded in the subconscious of our people, especially the Chinese. The whites have oppressed China and the Chinese since before the Opium Wars of 1840. [I am not saying this is right or wrong, but this is a Chinese strongly-held belief shared widely.]' I continue from my note to the Cabinet. 'After we broke with the Communists in 1961, it took the PAP leadership more than 20 years to swing the ground away from anti-British, anti-American attitudes, and eventually get them to accept America as a friendly power, who helps to guarantee our security against hostile big powers, like the Soviets and their Vietnamese surrogates, and also against other possible aggressive neighbours. Of course, we must attack the Americans when they do us in, as they did over the GSP and Copyright. But we must use language which does not convey to our people that they have become our strategic enemies. We must still identify them as a strategic friend, but one who, deplorably, has acted in bad faith. In other words, when attacking the US, we must make clear to our ground that the Americans have not become our enemies. They are our friends and we are angry because they were behaving badly, or mistreating us, as friends. Attached are letters from Oliveiro to the US Ambassador, and his reply. Oliveiro's language was intemperate. It is all too easy to slip back into the old anti-American rhetoric. But once we have worked up the ground, it is very difficult to sway them back to view the Americans as friends. Grassroots feelings are not controllable like taps to be shut or opened.' That is the problem. I gave some examples of how feelings, once having been worked up, it would be difficult to cool them down. I will not use the exact words because, being an internal circulation, I wrote rather freely, and it may be misunderstood because I chose examples of what was happening elsewhere. But if I can paraphrase what I said about what was happening in the Philippines, it would illustrate the problem we face. One example was the anti-American sentiment in the Philippines over the bases. Anti-Americanism was being worked up by communists and non-communists alike, but for different reasons. This could lead to a situation where, if and when President Aquino wanted to settle, it would have become difficult because the ground had turned hostile against America. When we did this U-turn over 20 years, it was a carefully graded U-turn we took. You cannot one day shout down the Americans and the British as enemies, and the following day say they are your friends. Only a communist party can do that. The Soviets denounced the Fascists, the Nazis in 1938. Then their Foreign Minister, Molotov, went to Berlin and signed a non-agression pact. And communists all over the world suddenly considered Nazi Germany as a friend. Singapore society is not so organized. On 14th April, in Washington, Vice-President Bush at his home told me of his concern over anti-American sentiments swelling up in the Philippines. He said he had been campaigning out in the hinterland of middle America. He said Americans got upset and restive when they heard Spaniards tell them to take their air force away. There were some F-16s, some squadrons in Spain and they had to be removed. I think they were going to Italy. And Filipinos tell Americans to get out of their bases. These protests, he said to me, could lead to a ground-swell of sentiment in the US to pull out and this will make things difficult for any US Administration. It is not in our interest to add to these problems of American leaders. Once again, I ask all Ministers, MPs, community leaders, when deploring what has happened, to remember and make it clear that Americans are our friends, not our enemies. Let me add that our security and strategic interests are the primary reason why I am against and fearful of working up anti-American sentiments. Without stability and security, there can be no economic growth, no investments, no trade. I give you an illustration. You know the Spratlys, Nansha, little sandbanks, hundreds of them, but there may be oil around them. The Vietnamese are on it. The Chinese Navy has turned up. They are inside, on some of the islands. There have been some clashes. The Philippines have got some troops on some of these islands, so have the Malaysians, so have the Taiwanese. If there was no US Seventh Fleet, it would be a very very dangerous situation because somebody could take it upon himself to settle and resolve the dispute. For instance, the Soviet Union may decide to lend the Vietnamese some submarines, as they have lent to India nuclear submarines, and the whole Chinese fleet will be sunk and the whole of the Spratlys will be taken over. I am not saying that these things will happen but these things have not happened because there is a counter balancing force. So you can have this sparring without disastrous consequences. You know, in ASEAN, we try to find ways. We are fearful that one day the friendly big powers lose interest in maintaining a balance in this part of the world, and that is trouble for us. So we think of ways and means to find an alternative. And in 1971 the Malaysians came up with ZOPFAN - Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. The Soviets immediately said, "Me, I will support you." It did not come to much because you need all major parties to agree. In 1984, our Indonesian partners proposed a Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, SEANWFZ. It is a contagious business. In the South Pacific, the New Zealanders have said, "No nuclear ships and nuclear weapons." And in 1986, 11th of December, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Rim countries signed a treaty on nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. 11th of December, they signed. 15th of December, the Soviet Union also signed the treaty. But a few days later they entered various reservations (the crucial one being to Protocol 2) stating that the Soviet Union would have the right to consider itself free from the treaty commitments if other parties to the treaty violate the non-nuclear status of the zone. They know that the US and the British have said, "We are not declaring." So by adding this proviso, they say, "You see, we are the good guys with the white hats, and these are the bad guys with the black hats." We must decide what is in our interest. Naturally, our economic interest with the US is another factor in our wanting to maintain good relations with them. US investments in Singapore exceed S$4.3 billion, rising at an average of over $560 million a year over the last five years. The US is the biggest foreign investor in the country and two-way annual trade exceeds $25 billion per year. But that is not the reason why we want them here as our friends. Let me explain. Our dependence on US trade is 19% of our total world trade. Hong Kong is 18% of theirs. South Korea 31%, Taiwan 36%. So we are not that dependent, only half. But look at the investments in Hong Kong - $7.2 billion against $4.3 billion in Singapore, and increasing despite 1992 coming. An hon. Minister: 1997.

Sorry, 1997. Thank you. I do not want to upset any stock market! Nobody in his right mind, whatever Hong Kong's present status, whether Hong Kong is a satellite or a client state, because she is a British colony, nobody in his right mind can believe that when the Chinese flag with the five golden stars goes up in Hong Kong in 1997, that that will be an American client state. And by then, at the rate it is increasing, easily over $10-15 billion. So it is two-three times ours. They are not a client state. We do not have to be. For completeness, investments in Taiwan, $1.7 billion, in Korea $1.6 billion. It is not American investments and trade that make a country an American satellite or a client. It is when a country's military, political, and/or economic dependency (on grants and aid) that leaves that country with little room for independent decision and/or action. We were able to protest against Mr Hendrickson's interference because we have room for independent decision and action. And we had to protest or we may begin to be mistaken for a client state. That is not a position we should ever find ourselves in. Until Hendrickson, no American diplomat has to our knowledge interfered in Singapore's domestic politics. But in any case, it is good economics that Singapore should diversify both our sources of investments and our trading partners. American trade deficits, balance of payments deficits, protectionist sentiment, make this very necessary. It has got nothing to do with anti-American feeling or their ability to use investments and trade to twist our arms. Once an investment is in a country, the arm-twisting can go both ways. We can go absolutely bonkers and upset the industrial relations and the investments will go down the drain. They cannot just lift machinery and go elsewhere. Trade cannot be shut off without serious international repercussions. Under GATT, of course, occasionally they use some strange clause and got hold of guppies and tropical fish to get us to sign some wild life agreement or whatever it was. That sort of game, well, it's borderline and people do that because it is for a good cause. But American companies having invested here find that they cannot re-import or import their products to include in their end products, that is going to be a very big American problem. I want to make this clear because I think we should be absolutely clear in our minds that investments and trade from America, with America, do not make us a dependency or a client. It is military, political and economic dependency. When you are a supplicant, then you are in trouble. We are not supplicants. We are small, we are poor. They say now we are not so poor. But we still say we are not rich. But even we were poor, we did not use a begging bowl and we were never supplicants. So the diversification is for economic reasons and it is already happening. Japanese investments now exceed $3.3 billion and is catching up with US investments because each year they are investing more than Americans. EEC investments $3.8 billion, more than the Japanese. And if you exclude petroleum because American investments, large proportions are in petroleum refining, if you exclude it, Japan is our largest investor, followed by the US $2.6 billion, followed by the EEC $1.3 billion. And our trade with Japan and the EEC are 15% and 12% of our total trade. $19.5 billion with Japan, $15.6 billion with the EEC. So we are diversifying but we should have more diversification. Sir, my experience of life since World War II has convinced me that American power is benevolent. It is benign. I know from long experience that they are not evil and mean no evil. Americans are idealistic and optimistic people, very unlike the old nations of Europe and Asia who are quite cynical and pessimistic. And the American government reflects these attributes. If the last war had been won by a European power, it had come out on top - let us say the British had been the great victor and they had the nuclear bomb, it is a different world today because they are no boy scouts. They stayed on top for over 150 years. How? They were careful about giving technology, even to their own kith and kin, their own whites in Canada, Australia, New Zealand. They kept the technology in Britain. Canada, Australia, New Zealand produce wheat, sheep, cows, beef, and they send the manufactured stuff. Americans invested in Europe and revived Europe after it was devastated. True, if they did not do that, Europe may have gone communist and the Soviets would become powerful. But if they were a cynical people, they could have done it so that the Europeans were always a few pegs lower than them. But the transfers of technology were so free that they have caught up and, in some fields, have surpassed the Americans. The same thing happened with Japan. No British government would be mad to go and help the Japanese recover from the devastation of the last war. They would help for humanitarian reasons - have a semi-pastoral economy. Only optimistic do-gooders. Somehow the world has been so kind to them, like their country, so vast and abundant, that they think if they could make everybody else like that, it will be a peaceful world - everybody will have plenty, everybody will be happy. I have my doubts. But, anyway, I am quite sure Europeans, including the Soviets, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Indians, do not believe this. But, nevertheless, although Americans mean well, they want the world to be like them, because they believe it will make for a better world. We must be careful because some of their best-intentioned schemes turn out to be naive and unwise and end up disastrously. You heard what happened in Iran. They meant well. They wanted Iran to become a modern state. I visited Iran several times in the 1970s. American universities were setting up branches or sister universities. Whole faculties were starting up, all kinds of esoteric subjects (geology, refining, technology), anything, you name it, the Americans will deliver because they had money, oil. What was missing? Democratic rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association. So they egged on opposition groups and the Shah. The Shah had run the place with an iron hand, including the SAVAK. The SAVAK and the KGB - I do not know who is more effective. But I can assure you, you should not get mixed up with them. They started meddling around. They meant well. President Jimmy Carter came along with the human rights campaign. The Shah got confused and bewildered. Of course, he was also under medication for various problems and that further befuddled the mind. The end-result was disaster. They had the Shah leave the country. The Prime Minister called Bakhtiar - democratic inclinations, but did not last more than a few days. The Ayatollah came back: gut feelings, not rational democratic impulses. Americans - you know, they go to a town in the West, they build a few houses and they put "Main Street". And they say, "Right. Okay, you be sheriff, I be mayor. Just a group of youngsters, "Never mind, in 10 years it will be a big, thriving place, and I will be a real big mayor. Meanwhile, we make-believe." And it succeeded. So they cannot see any reasons why it should not succeed in Iran. Now, 40-odd million Iranians have gone back to the Dark Ages, one million have died fighting the Iraqis, World War II style; hundreds of thousands are in Europe and America, scattered. So we have to use our own judgment. And the big problem is changing power relationships. Those of us who have lived through World War II have no doubts who are our friends and who are our adversaries, who are benign and who are aggressive nations. There are four major powers in the Pacific between whom the balance of power has to be maintained - the US, Japan, China, Soviet Union. I am not putting them in their order of strength. I am putting them in their order of friendliness for our purposes. I have no doubts who we should have as the dominant power. My concern is that US economic, and therefore military power, in a relative sense (relative to that of the other three) has been, over the last 30 years and is still, declining. But it is still the richest and most powerful, the strongest power in absolute terms; any single power. But relative to the increased wealth and power of Japan which can be translated into muscle, the increasing wealth and strength of China with modernization, and the Soviet Union with glasnost and perestroika (restructuring), the US is declining because the gap is narrowing. They were 40% of the non-communist world GNP in 1950. Now, they are less than 20%. The problem, however, at least (we also have to be optimistic because if we get too pessimistic, they will fold up tents and go away) we think it is manageable because Japan is the next strongest economic power. So if somehow they can find a way to match Japanese economic power with American economic plus military power, then the position is maintainable. Therefore, it is our duty in our own interests to encourage, not discourage, America to keep her presence in the Western Pacific. We can denounce stupid newspaper men, the offshore press. They irritate us, they annoy us. But, remember, they cannot really do us much harm. You have the Soviet Union as the dominant power - they do not need to have the offshore press torment you. Let me give you this anecdote. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon, some years ago met me at a conference. He, like me, had been discussing the decline of US power. He said the Soviet Ambassador asked to see him just as he was leaving for this conference. He said, "When I come back." But he said, "No, today." So he saw the Soviet Ambassador who gave him a big envelope, presented it; nothing much transpired. He said, "A gift from the Soviet Union." He opened it. It was next year's calendar. You see, when this chap says, "I want to see you", he said, "Better see him. He may do something nasty if you don't." So you can imagine, with these background thoughts, which I have had formed over a lifetime in politics, how deeply disturbed I was by this turn of events, which I knew for the first time, - a week, slightly over a week after my return, end April, beginning May. I had just been to Washington. The Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, he met me on 12th April; the President met me on 13th April. Both of them received me with great warmth, friendliness, and they extended me honours which a private visit did not require. I have known the Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, as a personal friend for many years since the early 1970s when he was in President Nixon's Cabinet and when he was out of government, in Bechtel. When I wrote to him on 6th May, I said it was with a very heavy heart that I had to register a protest over the interference in Singapore's domestic affairs, that I was bewildered why officials of the US State Department should be parties to such a plan. I said that I wanted to contain the public damage, especially in terms of Singaporean attitudes towards the United States. He replied on 9th May, assuring me that there was no plan whatsoever to interfere in the internal affairs of Singapore. He asserted strongly that Hendrickson, Lambertson and Snyder had conducted themselves in an entirely appropriate manner and that it was totally untrue that US government funds had been provided to opposition elements. He said he regretted that these allegations which were false were made public within hours after my letter was delivered and that, given the historic close ties, we should have consulted on the matter privately to resolve it. He shared my desire to contain the hostile feelings this incident was causing and urged that we put this matter behind us. The words and phrases were those he used. I want to put this matter behind us. But we can only do this after the investigations on Francis Seow, including his financial affairs, have been completed and the results made known. We have to be realistic. First, we need to explain the arrests and the interrogations of two non-communists, Patrick Seong and Francis Seow. Next, and this is a fact that we have to accept, to keep this feeling of grievance bottled up in the breast of Singaporeans, especially Singapore leaders, will poison the atmosphere between Singapore leaders, especially the second generation leaders, and the US officials involved. It is better to vent it. Psychologically, I think there are sound reasons that this may lead to a better long-term relationship. The State Department officials who have transgressed diplomatic norms must be made to realize - and I think they probably do now - that any further interference will cause a grave setback to our relations. So it is better that the feelings of Singapore Ministers, MPs and Singaporeans be vented, but not condemning the criminal designs of an enemy which was not the case, but regretting the misdemeanours of a friend. Singaporean feelings will abate and subside over a few weeks. Remember, we have not treated the US as a hostile power but as a friend because I had sent an earlier circular. Ministers vary in their temperament, in their diction, in their style. But the parameters I set that the US cannot be pictured or portrayed as a enemy was observed. Singaporean injured feelings, especially the second generation leaders, can and will cool down and relations can gradually return to normal. But I want to add that I fear there will now be a certain caution, a wariness, at what US bureaucrats and diplomats may be up to again in the future. Not with me, Rajaratnam or Barker, it is with the younger generation just getting their baptism in a totally unexpected way. What was the purpose of this interference? I was perplexed. I was bewildered. I was nonplussed. They could not have wanted the Singapore Government to go down. It is too absurd. But why criticize and attack the Singapore Government to its own citizens and instigate opposition? I could not make sense of it. So I consulted our two Heads of Mission, Tommy Koh in Washington and Kishore Mahbubani in the UN in New York. And I asked them to explain and help me understand why they thought American officials have acted in this way. Both of them have extensive experience in and of America. Tommy has been there 17 years, Kishore 6, three of which he spent in Washington. On Saturday, 28th May, five days ago, I met them for the first time in Singapore in my office and they spent three hours to explain things to me. I was amazed that I had been so ignorant of shifts in American policy and action. So I asked them to summarize it in order that I can quote their assessment for Members of this House. And this is the assessment: 'The behaviour of US diplomats in Singapore is not surprising as they cultivate opposition and dissident figures all over the world. Firstly, it helps the US to evaluate the stability of the regime it is dealing with. The State Department was surprised and deeply embarrassed by the sudden and total collapse of the Shah of Iran. It subsequently instructed all its officers to cover all bases in their political reporting. In this effort to elicit information from opposition figures, US diplomats would often feign [pretend] a posture of sympathy for their cause, if only to encourage them to be more forthcoming. Secondly, the Reagan Administration is deeply committed to supporting democratic forces around the world. The Reagan Administration has for example given both moral and material support to democratic forces fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia.' That I understand. 'In Asia, the Reagan Administration is very pleased with the successful transition from Marcos to Aquino in the Philippines and the move to greater political openness in South Korea and Taiwan. Thirdly, America, since its founding, has felt that it has a divine mission to be a beacon of democracy to the world [a divine mission to be a beacon of democracy]. Some Americans feel that the US can fulfil this role simply by being an exemplar to the world [just being a good example, a paradigm, a model]. Other Americans, however, feel that they have an obligation to actively promote the cause of democracy in the world and, if necessary, to do so by intervening in the internal affairs of other states.' Let me read that again: 'Other Americans, however, feel that they have an obligation to actively promote the cause of democracy in the world and, if necessary, to do so by intervening in the internal affairs of other states. Those who subscribe to this view are seized with missionary zeal and, like all good missionaries, have no doubt about the righteousness of their cause. Hendrickson was probably such a missionary. He probably felt that Singapore had already achieved a degree of political stability and economic prosperity when it would be in Singapore's own interests to have a more open political system. He probably intended Singapore no harm when he attempted to spot talent and to encourage them to enter the political process in the belief that it was in Singapore's long-term interest to develop a credible alternative to the PAP.' They are sane, sober, men who know that their names will be attached to this statement. But they are satisfied that they can defend this because the Americans they meet, both officials and non-officials, are quite open. They tell you to your face, "This is our mission." They write about it. They talk freely about it. I begin to feel that I have lost touch. This is new to me. Nobody has a right to go and convert me to Catholicism or Protestantism. They can send me tracts. My best Muslim friends insist that I should eat halal food and I sit with them, but nobody has tried to say that I ought to do other things besides to make myself a good Muslim. But what is all this about? Well, Tommy and Kishore believe that their assessment is the explanation for the activities of Hendrickson and the State Department officials and why they, the Americans, believed that they were right to do what they did, It is good for America to have friends who run sound, stable systems, like the American system, multi-party, dissent, discussion, robust discourse, conflict. And out of conflict, comes enlightenment. I asked Tommy and Kishore for the quietest and the fairest way to put an end to this matter. They proposed that the matter be resolved by both sides agreeing to a competent and neutral international committee of three experts. This committee, well versed in international law, practice and convention, can determine what Hendrickson and the State Department officials had done. And then make their finding on whether they had acted legitimately as diplomats or whether they had interfered in the internal affairs of Singapore. I accepted their proposal and, in a spirit of conciliation, I put it forward as a simple way to put this matter quietly to rest. The Singapore Government will abide by the finding of such a committee. If the committee finds that what Hendrickson and the State Department officials had done were legitimate diplomatic activities and were not an interference in Singapore's internal affairs, then the Singapore Government will withdraw its protest and apologize to the State Department. If the US government agrees to this proposal, we can discuss the modalities, settle the composition of this committee and its terms of reference. I am told by both of them, particularly Tommy who is familiar with the legal processes of arbitration and settlement of disputes between states, that there are established precedents for doing this. So I offer this proposal as an amicable and a fair way to resolve the matter. Let me add that I do not press for its acceptance, but I simply offer it as a fair way to put an end to the matter. As a Chinese, the Chinese believe in conciliation, and arbitration, rather than in conflict and litigation. I discussed this briefly with the Member for Ayer Rajah yesterday. I said, "What if I put this forward?" He said, "What is it for?" So I said, "It is a Chinese way of sorting out a problem." I have not used Hokkien for a long time because we do not want to encourage Hokkien. The Member prefers Hokkien. He thinks it will be understood in coffee shops. (In Hokkien: ) (In Mandarin: zuo gong zheng lai diao jie liang ge peng you jian di wu hui) Let us have a "kong jin lang" (settle this). No point squabbling over it. But if the answer is no, well, all right, let us drop it. But I have several other points to make. Our two Heads of Mission also told me that "many State Department officials prefer that Singapore move from what they consider to be an authoritarian political system based on consensus, to a pluralistic democracy based on a multi-party system, as found in the West." Therefore, State Department officials have criticized Singapore to them, as not moving forward in liberalizing and democratizing as they have done in Taiwan and Korea. This again nonplusses me. Our Ambassador in Washington and our Permanent Representative in New York: they have both been told, not just by officials but also by Asia experts - people who formulate opinion, who study Asia and help the State Department and the Foreign Affairs counsellors and other specialists who are interested in Asia - that Singapore used to be graded as B (you know, A, B, C, D, E, F). They graded Singapore as B in the democratic pecking order in Asia, compared to C for Korea and Taiwan. Now Korea and Taiwan are going up to B and Singapore is going down to C when they expect Singapore to go up to A. It now begins to make sense to me because when I was at the meeting with the American Association of Newspaper Editors, there was this Wall Street Journal man who was the editor. He also talked about Korea and Taiwan, how they were liberalizing and Singapore was moving backwards. Norman Pearlstine criticized us for moving in the wrong direction. They considered Singapore more advanced, based on per capita GNP, longer experience of elected government and stronger political institutions. It is the same approach as the State Department officials' approach on copyright laws. They wanted Singapore to be the pace-setter. So in the case of copyright, they persuaded us to adopt and pass legislation on copyright which was nearly ideal, near perfection, so that it could become the model for Taiwan and Korea. Also, of course, for Thailand now. To induce us to enact such a law, they promised us extended GSP concessions. We passed the law and the model was pressed on Taiwan, Korea, Thailand and all the others. That is all right. But it is a totally wrong view of our position if from copyright you go on and press the analogy to political development. That is totally different. Whether or not the US officials advise or otherwise nudge, coax, cajole, what Koreans and Taiwanese do or should do, I think it has nothing to do with us. It is best if they keep out of Singapore's domestic politics. We are in a totally different category. It is not lack of knowledge of democratic principles or constitutional law. Maybe the Taiwanese leaders did not study the US Constitutional laws. Maybe General Chun had no idea of what democracy is. But my colleagues and I are well-versed in the theory and also in the practice. So we know what can work and what cannot work. It is not for me to pass judgment on what they consider it to be, and rightly so, because so far all has gone well with liberalizing and democratizing. We have not reached the end of the road yet. You need a certain culture to accept that because by counting heads you are temporarily in the minority, you have to accept the other side's right to govern. The British do this. The British bequeathed it to the Americans, the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders. Very few other countries do this. In other countries, having lost, they say, "How is that? You must have cheated me." The moment President Roh won, they said, "You cheated me." Never mind whether he did or did not. The first thing you say is, "He did." And you organize rallies. It is a different culture. I wish them well and may they thrive and prosper. We have slowly evolved a politics of coalition. It is slow, it is laborious. In a way, it was a fluke that we succeeded. Because the communists were so dominant and so terrifying and so powerful, we became the only alternative and we rallied the whole of the rest around us, and we eliminated all other parties, or absorbed them. Then in 1966, they decided to walk out of Parliament, take the battle to the streets. And we moved quickly to fill up vacant ground. And we straddled a very broad spectrum of the centre. We left little niches on the extreme right and on the left. And little niches for the Member for Potong Pasir. It was right to do that. The Member for Potong Pasir says, "No trouble at all. We are all McDonald kids now. No worry." Really? I have been born, bred and lived in Singapore all my life, nearly 65 years, a few years abroad as a student, few months' travelling every now and again, and I still discover that I did not know many fundamental things about Singapore. We thought, we were convinced: you get everybody - different races, different religions, different cultures, different languages - mix them up in the new towns, send their children to integrated schools, and in one generation you have an integrated society. It is wrong, is it not? Every Member of Parliament knows it is wrong. That is not what has happened. It may happen in another two, three, four generations. But it is still little, little lumps that meet and sometimes coalesce and interact. So what I would ask them to remember is that to believe that we can be a model to set the pace for political development in East Asia, especially Taiwan and Korea, is a total misconception. We are totally different. No one race, no one language, no one culture, which these countries have. But, of course, they have other problems. And it is not my business to express doubts and reservations. They express it to me when I meet them and they have very severe reservations. But remember, our destiny is in Southeast Asia, not East Asia; that our milieu, our neighbours are ASEAN, not Japan, not China. In any case, let me remind American experts: unlike Korea under President Chun, or the Philippines under President Marcos (you know, I always choose past examples), the PAP Government is different. We assume and we retain, we are retained in office, after free and secret elections. Yes, we lost 12% of the votes the last time. But it was still 62+% of the votes. When Margaret Thatcher won with 42% of the votes, that is a signal victory. But by our method of coalition and coalescing of groups, we reached a peak of 75%; something to be proud of, not to be ashamed of. I am not ashamed of it. And if my younger colleagues do not know that that is something to strive for, that would be a great pity. We have renewed our right to govern every four to five years. We will evolve and have evolved our own democratic practices and conventions. We are a different society and we want to be different, because being different will help us survive. I said this to the American editors when I met them in April. You take 2 1/2 million Americans and put them in Singapore, it would not last six months. You would be at war, both internally and with your neighbours. You write in the Singapore papers like you write in the American papers, and I tell you, you are dead. But I do not think that they understood, and it takes too long to explain. A Singapore paper is not read in Kuala Lumpur. A Kuala Lumpur paper is not read in Singapore. Why? There is a reason, is it not? It excites and incites people. We are trying to get what was one society to go along two different paths. I am not sure what the end-result will be but I know that we are going along very different paths and they originated from the same starting point. And things could have gone very seriously wrong after that statement on 18th April if the Government had merely issued a counter statement denying the accusations. Calculate what would have happened. My colleagues and I, we always sit down and calculate. Yes, we have feelings. But when we analyze, we put feelings aside. You issue a counter statement. They have another joint statement. More accusations. They are all group accusations - not "A beat me", I sign. "B beat X". No. Nine said, "The following things happened." To whom? "They". By whom? - no mention. What was the purpose? To create a miasma, a fog of doubt, suspicion of wrongdoing. Is it not? Right? End-result - exchanges go on for weeks, confusion, and the Government's credibility plunges, and they achieve what they want to achieve - votes. That is what the game is about - votes. Once this was clear - and Mr Rajaratnam and I were probably the first two that saw this game because the communists had played every kind of game they could have thought of on us. There is nothing new on the chess board, the kind of moves you can make. You can tell whether a group is out for redress, real grievance - I want something put right - or is out to plunge a knife into you and twist it and bleed you. That is the game. What for? They were released, some in September last year. They waited seven months. You take it in September, it is too early, is it not? Election is too late. New issues will arise. Wait for me to be away. Then Acting Prime Minister makes false move. Disaster, is it not? Everybody knows, including the Member for Potong Pasir, that elections are coming. All our opponents know or should know that these nine - I do not know who masterminded it, it is still being sorted out - they chose to deliver their blow in April when I was out of the country. But events did not turn out the way they expected or anticipated. But there is still time for those who had backed the joint statement and egged on the signatories to get together, present an alternative platform and an alternative government and contest against the PAP. Perfectly aboveboard. Mr Chiam has been trying to do that since 1976 when he first contested Cairnhill. It is 12 years ago. Get an alternative platform - economics, security, defence, social advance, education - publish. You have got to sit down and think and write, and write it better than the terms of reference. And you have got to justify and sell it, which was what we did. No press published the PAP manifesto. We published them in small little booklets and sold them, and they sold like hot cakes. And we made speeches. 50,000-60,000 turned up. That is how we won. Nothing to stop you. Nothing to stop all non-communists who want to work the system to do that. The Government stands ready to defend its record. It is not a record I am ashamed of. I know some of my friends wish or hope that my arteries have hardened and maybe something has malfunctioned. But I can assure you that maybe I cannot run as fast. When I do my aerobics, it takes me more effort to reach 125 pulse beats a minute than, say, 10 years ago. But here [pointing to the head] the diminution is not so fast. All those who claim that the 22 arrested were just amateur dramatists, social workers and so on, they are free to campaign. Are we mad? We do not know these people. It is the job of the ISD. I never knew of Vincent Cheng. Let me explain to the Member for Potong Pasir the scenario if we take his advice. At least when the British and Lim Yew Hock rounded up the communists, I knew that they were in a back-handed way doing me a favour. I did not thank them because that would have been wrong. Because they did not do it for me, they did it for themselves. But I knew that I benefited. You have a man like Chia Thye Poh come up. Do you think he is going to look for McDonald kids? That is stupid talk, is it not? Are you sure that Vincent Cheng was the only thinker around with the group working under him? It is ISD's job to spot them. I have explained how the ISD developed. When you work behind fronts and they are linked up in little groups and somebody is a directing force and you can only get a small group at any one time, then ISD zeroes in. It takes manpower, time, equipment, electronic devices. What for? To go and chase a few social workers? Are we out of our minds? We talked to the Archbishop to try and get him to clean up his own para-church organizations. That I go and take 10 minutes of the Pope's time to tell his Holiness in front of his Cardinal, who is his secretary, and his Archbishop who is the Papal Nuncio and our Archbishop, so that they understood this was taken by the Government seriously. Vincent Cheng is a newcomer to the game. He is English-educated, does not know Chinese. He is learning. His models are the Filipino models - Father Torres - his links are there. Mr Chia Thye Poh now is effectively bilingual. He was not when he was a young MP here but he is a very bright man. I said this before and I say it now. I respect him. He has got courage, conviction, motivation and a desire not to write off his investments. What makes the older generation different? Because we have met men who struck terror in our hearts. When I passed by one of the SDP rallies and I watched the organization and motor-cyclists run around, I am completely relaxed because they come, they go, they were out for fun, an outing. When I see a differently-organized meeting and cheer leaders, that is different. I can sense it. Mahjong players, after a long play, you do not have to look at the seed. You just pick up the chip, and you say, "Oh, bad one, throw it away." You put Vincent Cheng and several others like him - I do not know, I have not asked the ISD, it is their job to find out - in touch with Chia Thye Poh. And all his long years of experience, the Plen is still around. He has not given up, as I have not given up. To fight them, you must have a determination as stiff as theirs, if not stiffer, because if I win, they live, and I have got to feed them. Prison rules say so much butter, so much eggs, so much beef. If they win, lobotomy! I come out a different man and Asiawatch and Amnesty International cannot help me, and I know that. This is not a lark. It is not a picnic. We have created a situation in which the Member can emerge. But he cannot get going after 12 years. Why? Let me explain why. Try and get dedicated people with the drive to achieve a change in society, not just to get a good meal for helping you put up your posters. That will get you nowhere. When I met the young lady, Miss Teo Soh Lung and the other young lady, Tang Fong Har, all they needed were two pigtails and we go back to 1950s, 1960s, because they have got determination. They want to change the world. They are not there to help Mr Jeyaretnam. They despise him. We know that. They did not want to join him because that will lower their standing. But they will write for him, they will do things for him. They will use him to bring the situation into a chaotic one. More and more of them and you will get a repeat. Please remember, you may have a prosperous Singapore but if you have problems in Malaysia you cannot escape it. It is an inter-related situation. We are mirror images of each other. If we can prevent them from diving into the English-educated world - this may be a selfish way of looking at it - but even if the Malaysians are unfortunate and run into economic problems and security problems, we may minimize the spillover. But if we do not, we are involved all over again. I do not ask anybody's views for that. I know. The Plen is a Singaporean, but last seen he was in a chicken farm off Kuala Lumpur and they just missed him, 10 years ago. I can tell you, he also plays chess. He is as bright as you make him, only he was on the wrong side. His cards were weak ones. I will end up by reminding every Member that in a contest such as this, after all the sound and fury, the nature of the system we run puts us at the mercy of the electorate. If they vote against us, that is that. There is no reprieve. You look at Pakistan. Did they try the elections again? I have just been there. It is scrapped. I do not know what happened. I am flummoxed. These are new countries. When you talk of the United States of America, it has got over 200 years; I mean the first settlement was in the 16th century. Yes, they were independent for 200 years, but the first settlement, 400 years ago, nearly. Certain attitudes, institutions, an acceptance of a certain way of doing things, it is instinct almost. Culture so embedded is instinct. You have won, all right, it is your day, I wait my turn. There are serious constitutional writers who say that the Japanese system is not democratic because for over 30 years they have not changed governments. It is like the PAP. Who is to tell the Japanese people that if you want to be an advanced democratic country and be accepted as a Western industrialized power, you must swop your loyalties as regularly as we swop our clothes and fashions? They are Japanese. They will vote for a socialist to be mayor just to express their protest. But deep in their hearts they know this Keidanren, the Zaibatsus, they look after me, I get a good job, I get doctors, I get holidays, I follow the flag and go all around the world with my friends. Why do I want to change? And who is to tell Singapore that if they vote for the PAP, that is not democracy? Would we have got here if we had been swopping horses every four years? All those who believe that Francis Seow was right in collaborating with Hendrickson, all those who believe that all that we have done is wrong, campaign against us. Start now! Singaporeans will decide on how they are to be governed and who is to govern them. And it is our job, that of the Government, our responsibility and, in my case, a sense of sacred mission, stronger than what Hendrickson feels, that this will not come to nought. Let me tell the Member for Potong Pasir, when he talks about fear and intimidation - What rot and tripe! When we stood up to be counted against the British, we knew that was safe. At the most, they would lock us up and, prison regulations, I knew what I was entitled to. I was a lawyer, I knew exactly. When we broke with the communists, I knew no holds barred. Fortunately, from 1952 I had been working with them, right up till 1959, seven years. I watched them chase David Marshall from pillar to post. He agreed this, they got a new issue. He agreed that issue, something else turned up. Never ending. I saw them destroy Lim Yew Hock, and the whole lot. As what? Anti-Chinese language, anti-Chinese culture. The man stupidly allowed the British, with the police and the army, and army helicopters, to flush out the students from Chinese High School, Chung Cheng High School. We learned. If we had not learned all that, we would have died. So when they started that on us, we never flushed them out. We just carried on with the examinations and told the parents, "If your child does not turn up, he is repeating another year." The parents fought the pickets. That is a new game, isn't it? That made it possible for the Member to be here. But for the Member to beat us, remember, there are very few karate blows we do not know how to deliver. We will abide by the results. I have every confidence that the second generation will be here for quite some time. And I advise all those who want to be friends with Singapore to mend their fences with the second generation. I was away, they could have botched things up. They didn't. True, I came back and I was a lightning conductor. They have learnt how to take the heat. They are tempered people. They will fight for Singapore. [Applause.]

I am not suspending the Sitting. We will carry on until we finish. A bit of starvation may be good for your souls. 1.36 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think we have debated an issue of utmost importance, an issue which concerns every Singaporean, and that is the security of the State. The Marxist Conspiracy and the Hendrickson affair, as we now know, are subversive activities that threaten our security. It is the duty of an elected government to deal with such threats and to ensure the security of the State. As both cases involve detention without trial, all concerned Singaporeans should also make an effort to comprehend them fully. This effort is needed especially when hostile offshore and foreign press are making a concerted effort, orchestrated campaigns, distorted facts, to discredit the Government. Sir, we had a full debate and the truth is for everybody to see, provided one does not refuse to open his eyes. We have spoken our minds and made clear our stand. As representatives of the people, we have also expressed our views and feelings. We support the Government for its firm and prompt action against all subversive elements so as to prevent our country from being destabilized. We sup- port the use of ISA for such purpose. We deplore foreign interference in our domestic affairs. We have registered our anger and indignation. And we have sent a clear signal to outsiders - hands off Singapore politics, Singapore politics is for Singaporeans only, and we are capable of looking after ourselves and charting our own destiny. Sir, much of the debate focussed on the Hendrickson affair. This is understandable. The incident was unexpected, outrageous, coming from a country regarded by us as friends. And we have made it abundantly clear that we are against the wrongdoings of Hendrickson and company and not the US as a whole, not even the US Administration or the State Department. Personally, Sir, I make no apology for my harsh words on the wrongdoings of Hendrickson and company. Why should we condone? Why should we allow a few blacksheep to impair the otherwise good relationship between Singapore and the United States? Sir, if as a result of this unfortunate incident, both countries emerge as better friends, this would be a blessing in disguise. And I think we are indeed fortunate that such covert activities were uncovered early, and for that, credit must be given to the ISD for its vigilance and professionalism. Sir, I am glad to say that, as a whole, our response to this particular incident has been rational, measured and appropriate. And for this, credit must be given to the political leadership, in particular the younger Ministers. They have been able to handle the crisis in cool, calm, firm and correct manner. And they have been able to set things right and to painstakingly explain the Government's actions to the people. And, of course, to our people for their political maturity. Sir, we have had a useful debate. If there were doubts on the Government's actions against the Marxist conspirators and those who have colluded with foreigners to undermine our stability, to discredit our elected government, such doubts should have been cleared. And in the process, we have re-learnt an important lesson - that we cannot take our stability and security for granted, that all security threats must be dealt with effectively and promptly. Sir, many important points have been brought up during the debate and many of them are worth repeating, but I shall highlight only just a few. (1) The communists never give up and the Marxists never give up. In fact, the fight is now between the ISD and the communists trying to move into the English-educated world. (2) the ISA is crucial to Singapore. We need the ISA to effectively deal with subversion. And by subversion, we mean any political activity designed to further the aims and interests not of our own people but of foreign powers. And by foreign powers, we mean not just the communist countries but also Western powers. (3) On the Hendrickson affair, we have to register the point of principle. No foreigners, not even a good friend, can interfere in our political development. If we fail to get this point acknowledged, then all foreign powers will conclude that Singaporeans are fair game. To hush up would have been impossible and unwise. It would be mistaken as a sign of weakness and docility, inviting further abuse. On the part of the US Administration, to continue to exonerate errant officials and try to turn black into white would do no good in repairing the damages done by Hendrickson and company. (4) We have to maintain the standards of Parliament. If not, a Parliament of able and moral men who look after the interests of the people will degenerate into a Parliament of immoral and opportunistic men whose concerns are themselves, or worse, their outside masters. Once Parliament is not filled with upright men but small men, or mean men, the whole system of government, and then the whole society, must disintegrate. Sir, the debate is now concluded but the battle has not ended. Singaporeans have been reminded just yesterday that the hostile foreign press has now embarked on an open campaign against Singapore. I think the battle is on two fronts. One, between the campaign to confuse, to mess things up, and the efforts to set things right. The other is a continued and unending fight for the hearts and minds of the people. Or the battle between the Jun zi and the xiao ren, the upright men and the mean men. Therefore, we should continue the struggle. We should soldier on. Finally, Sir, allow me to thank all Members who have spoken, including the Member for Potong Pasir. I must also thank all Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, who have participated in this debate. And I must thank you, Sir, for your patience and indulgence.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House -

Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Two o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.