Why there should be no complete declassification

 

 

What many people don't realise is that even the most prominent of liberal theorists did not advocate for complete declassification or full transparency of government documents. Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham recognise that democracies had reson to keep security-relevant secrets from public even though transparency and publicity were the foundational principles of a functioning democracy. The capacity for secrecy by states is something activists or historians often try to skim over, because it makes their work more difficult.

Why is there is need for some state secrecy? The case of Snowden leaks is a prime example of how things can go very wrong when information is not properly declassified before it is released to the public. While I do not deny the good of declassification, releasing information lock stock and barrel can potentially harm those who have helped state agencies keep peace and order. It can also prove to be very embarrassing and contentious for bilateral state relations when frank analysis is taken in bad faith. Other times, especially in multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, unadulterated declassification can result in the opening of old wounds along primordial lines. 

 

Hence, while historians and activists call for declassification, and I agree there should be more, we should remember that the USA often declassify their information but with plenty of censorship, so much so that some do not make sense at all. Similarly, the Brits do not release all their documents under the Freedom of Information Act; they have a variety of exemptions including those that will prejudice defence, security forces, international relations, economic interests, law enforcement, safety of individual etc.

Last, but not least, we should be more concern with how we approach new sources of evidence. Is one so eager to re-write history and seek out the contrarian? Is one writing to further a current and present agenda? After all, we shall find what we seek.

The early life Singapore communist leader Eu Chooi Yip

Eu Chooi Yip (1918-1995) was the Secretary of the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), Singapore’s first political party after the Second World War, and the leader of Singapore’s underground communist movement in the 1950s. He was the leader of the Communist Party of Malaya in Singapore. He took direct orders from Chin Peng, the secretary-general of MCP, and was the superior of Fang Chuang Pi, aka the Plen.

Eu was born in Kuantan, Malaysia and he came to Singapore to attend Victoria School and later Raffles College where he studied economics. Eu came from a poor family, his parents died when he was young and he could only attend college because he won a scholarship. Eu was a brilliant student and was one of the top graduates at Raffles College. He was a close friend of Goh Keng Swee, whom he knew during his Raffles College days.

Another close friend was former DPM and Foreign Minister, S Rajaratnam, who was his housemate at Chancery Lane. Rajaratnam helped Chooi Yip to get medical treatment for his tuberculosisand gave him shelter while he was hiding from the British.

As a ranked communist he was a wanted man in Singapore and Malaysia. Eu stayed in China for many years and he later sought help from Goh Keng Swee to return to Singapore. In 1991, Eu renounced communism and returned to Singapore. He died in Singapore in 1995.

In his own oral history, Eu said that he was indoctrinated by leftist thought and Marxism under the influence of his elder sister, who was herself a leftist and was involved in student activism. At the age of 13, he was arrested by the colonial police for participating in an anti-imperialist march organised by the underground movement. Overseas Chinese were indignant with Western powers as China in the 1930s was severely crippled by colonial powers. His teachers also played an important role in shaping his outlook, many of them were leftist-communist and they inspired Eu with stories of revolution, injustices to the Chinese, Mao Zedong etc. 

You can listen to reel 1 of Eu Chooi Yip oral history in Chinese here.

You can read reel 1 of Eu Chooi Yip oral history in Chinese here.

As the source material is Chinese, I have translated some interesting bits into English here:

Eu: I consider myself to be a little of a leftist since young. I had an older sister, who came to Singapore from 1927 to 1930 and studied at Nan Hua Girls' School (became known later as Zhong Hua Girls' School). My sister participated in underground activities - the past student movements. As a result of the school activist movement, she was sacked and went back to Kuantan. Before 1929, 1930, I was 11/12 years old but precocious, my older sister often chatted with me about politics. She was merely 5 years older than me (16/17 years old) and constantly talked about politics, thus, since young, I was able to absorb anti-imperialist ideologies. China was also undergoing a period of turmoil at that time, every year there was 'The Day of Infamy', 'Jinan Massacre', and I was often affected by such events. The adults frequently talked about national affairs, the Japanese Occupation, how detestable the 'Ang Mohs' were etc.

Eu: Some of my teachers at Yang Zheng (Yeung Ching) were organizing anti-Japanese activities. When an artist called Gu Feng was arrested, I was infuriated. While I was studying and under the influence of my older sister, a member of the underground Singapore Students' Anti-British League came to find me and I was further influenced, reading the newspapers etc. That year was 1931 when I was only 13 years old. I matured earlier and was interested in such things, thus, I went to the book stores often. After school, I would go to Shanghai Bookshop or a new book store at Cross Street to read up which resulted in me being attracted to leftist ideology.

Interviewer: The underground student union, what was the organization like in the 1930s? It consists of some Chinese primary and secondary schools from all over Singapore?

Eu: Probably not so formal, not like the later Chinese School Union (1955), I guess it was started by some teachers, we were too young and did not know much. At that time, I got into contact with one student who came from Bangka (?) to study English in Singapore. He was a Hakka, and through him, I joined the underground student union. Every week there would be a meeting at Mount Emily, under a tree beside the swimming pool and the people who led the meeting would be students from Hwa Chong. That was how I came into contact with them, every week after class, I did not take my studies seriously; after class I would spend time with them, listening to their stories, going to book stores, read books, chat, in actual fact, there wasn't many activities, but this was how I got to know them, then later on something happened.

Eu: That year was 1931, 32. After I studied for about a year or so. One day, the underground organization organized a demonstration. This took place in 1932, probably 1st of August, on a day called 'Anti-Imperialist Day', not sure which day? It happened so long ago, I can't remember clearly. On that night, they asked us to participate. I was young and curious, thus I really went to participate. Around 7-8pm, a group of us walked together, but the police were aware of this and all of a sudden, they came to arrest us.

Eu: At the intersection between Victoria Street and Arab Street. In the past, roughly 50 , 60 years ago, there was a Japanese hospital there. At the beginning, while walking, we started singing as well. We formed a procession, not that many people, around 20/30. The police arrived in their black cars and I was arrested. I was just a child then, around 13 years old, luckily I was still a kid.

Eu: I was brought to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and was interrogated. Around 5-6 people were arrested along with me. Once we were brought in, the 'Ang Moh Big Dog' (Caucasian Senior Officer) started questioning us, those Hainanese (who were older), were beaten by him. We just stood there and he treated us as little children. He asked me and I pretended that I did not know anything. I replied in Cantonese saying that I did not know why I was arrested and claimed that I was arrested by mistake. However, I was still taken to an old prison in Outram Road and was placed under detention.

[Eu was later released on bail due to the lack of evidence and was sent back to Kuantan by his elder brother. He studied for a year in Kuantan.]

Interviewer: Was there any teacher from Yang Zheng school that left a deep impression on you?

Eu: There was a teacher called Wang Si Liang. There were many leftist teachers back then but he stood out. During class he would talk about Marx's historical materialism, we didn't really understood everything, but we would buy some books to flip around. The main things we talked about were patriotism towards China, anti-Japanese movement and Marxism...but it was very superficial. We knew there was the revolution, that imperial powers were evil, we had to crush imperialism, these were the main points.

Interviewer: After you came back from Kuantan, did the underground student union re-established their contact with you?

Eu: No, there was no contact. When I got into Victoria School, there was none. At that time, I was trying very hard to study English and did not read that many Chinese books. Most of the friends that I made spoke English.When I entered university, things changed. At that time, it was 1937 and the resistance had just begun. The whole of Singapore was excited and particularly interested in the domestic situation. At that time, there were a few teachers from Kuantan; one named Liu Xi Wen (from Jiangxi) who taught arts and music. He was a little of a leftist. Liu's younger brother was named Liu Kai Lin and Liu also had a cousin named Liu Dao Nan who used to teach at Nan Zhong. All of them were from Jiangxi and considered themselves to be leftists. Since young, I was influenced by them and they let me read those so-called 'progressive books'. I was very close with these teachers and often listened to their stories (revolving around their life in China). From 1925 to 27 (the time of the Chinese Revolution), they participated in these movements and some of them were also part of the revolutionary army. They talked about the stories of the revolution, of Guo Moruo and Mao Ze Dong, thus, I grew up listening to such stories.


Interviewer: At that time, was there any mention of the Communist Party of Malaya?
Eu: I knew of the Communist Party of Malaya. At that time, the Communist Party of Malaya, 1927..1928..1929.. they had activities at small places. They organized night studies etc... there were people who viewed the Communist Party as the Hainan Communist Party. There were larger numbers of foreign workers and workers from the coffee shops; most of the participants were Hainanese, in the earlier days, there were fewer Cantonese and Hokkien people. After the resistance, there were more Hokkien people (who joined).

Interviewer: After you came to Singapore, that underground student union.. at that time you were still young but were you aware of what went on behind..
Eu: I'm not too sure, I guess many of them were teachers...
Interviewer: Could it (the underground student union) be related to the Communist Party of Malaya?
Eu: That was started by the Communist Party of Malaya.
Interviewer: It was already known then?
Eu: Yes. It had a few underground organizations, one of it was the anti-imperialist league, the other was the student union. I had heard of these two. At that time, the Communist Party of Malaya had just started. The Communist Party of Malaya was officially established in 1930. Ho Chi Minh came to Malaysia to attend the official ceremony marking the formation of the Communist Party of Malaya.

Original Sin? Revising the Revisionist Critique of the 1963 Operation Coldstore

Another upcoming new book on Operation Coldstore...looks like both sides are eager to get their version of history out. On the one hand, I don't think Lim Chin Siong is clean as a whistle but Lee Kuan Yew is definitely someone who would bend the rules if given the chance. There's no black and white in this case, only shades of grey.

By Kumar Ramakrishna

Synopsis

A new book on the 1963 Operation Coldstore debunks attempts by revisionist writers to portray the operation as driven by political motives rather than security grounds.

Commentary

FIFTY-TWO years ago this month, on 2 February 1963, a historic internal security dragnet known as Operation Coldstore was conducted in Singapore. Mainstream accounts record that the sweep, authorised by the Internal Security Council comprising British, Singaporean and Malayan governmental representatives, approved the detention – under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO) – of ultimately 130 leftwing politicians, unionists, and other activists – that basically destroyed the Communist United Front in Singapore.

This development helped pave the way for Singapore’s political union or merger with the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia, in September that year. Coldstore was hence a defining moment in Singapore’s history. It is thus counterintuitive that a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey found that a paltry 16.6 percent of a sample of 1,516 Singaporeans were even aware of the operation.

Why Coldstore matters

Certainly, the survey results suggest that more can be done to improve the general historical awareness of Singaporeans. Nevertheless, the results are also intriguing: they belie the ongoing controversy about Coldstore that has been going on for more than a year. The debate in this connection is not about whether Coldstore was a defining moment in Singapore’s history, but rather what it really meant.

As noted, while mainstream writers argue that the operation destroyed the CUF that had been destabilising Singapore’s political and industrial fabric since the mid-1950s, “revisionist” historians, former detainees and their online supporters maintain the real implication of Coldstore was that it destroyed not a Communist network but rather a legitimate progressive leftwing political opposition centered on the Barisan Sosialis Singapura (BSS).

Coldstore thus paved the way for the People’s Action Party (PAP) to win the general election in September 1963. Hence Coldstore was – as one revisionist historian puts it, the PAP government’s “original sin”. It other words, the Coldstore arrests were basically driven by opportunistic political motives rather than national security grounds, and hence calls into question the “morality of how the PAP came to rule Singapore”.

The revisionist message is thus a potentially corrosive one. If it gains traction with the younger, well-educated and cosmopolitan Singaporeans who will one day become the business, civil society and even government elites of the next decade or more, the net effect could be to foster even greater levels of the general cynicism and anti-communitarian sentiments one routinely encounters on social media sites nowadays.

From a national security perspective, while diversity of views can broaden what political scientist Cass Sunstein calls a society’s “argument pools”, there are limits. Such anti-communitarian cynicism and excessive individualism would be utterly counterproductive for a society’s longer-term cohesion, stability and resilience – especially a society and polity as socially variegated and globalised as modern Singapore’s.

Little wonder that in 1979 the late former foreign minister, Mr. S. Rajaratnam, underscored the importance of what the great medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun called asabiyya – a commodity blending robust group solidarity with the gumption to surmount challenges.

Revisionist sins

What thickens the plot is that the revisionist message on Coldstore is deeply problematic for four basic reasons, as the writer attempts to argue in his new book Original Sin? Revising the Revisionist Critique of the 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2015).

Firstly, the book shows that rather than scholarly detachment, an anti-government ideological agenda seems to motivate at least some revisionist writers. Secondly, the revisionists as a whole seem to possess a very limited definition of what a threat “prejudicial” to public order was at the time of Coldstore, thereby skewing their analysis towards the notion that Coldstore was driven by politics rather than security considerations.

Thirdly, the book shows that the revisionists by and large harbour rather naïve expectations of how incumbent political leaders should behave. Revisionist expositions seem to suggest that even if the Communist United Front were employing all types of illegal stratagems to cynically exploit the constitutional route to power, the incumbent PAP government was supposed to sit back and play by the rules at all costs.

Fourthly and relatedly, the book shows that in general the revisionists as a whole do not seem to have fully grasped the Communist mindset, strategy and tactics that the PAP leaders of that era came to know only too well and were compelled to doggedly counter.

The Lim Chin Siong affair

One of the key strands in the book is its analysis of the political career of the charismatic Barisan leader Lim Chin Siong, portrayed in revisionist analyses as a potential future Singapore prime minister who was purportedly unjustly arrested under Coldstore.

The book – employing both declassified and some still-classified sources – addresses the perennial question of whether Lim was indeed a Communist and why it mattered. In doing so certain relatively obscure facts about how Communism distorted Lim’s life are addressed, with due restraint and sensitivity.

Only by shedding light on these issues can inaccurate revisionist ideas about Lim be effectively debunked. The larger takeaway from the Lim Chin Siong affair incidentally, retains relevance for the current struggle with the violent extremism of the ISIS type: able men can be led grossly astray by evil ideologies.

Reading Original Sin?

Original Sin? makes three general requests of readers. Firstly, be sceptical both ways: revisionist writers and their supporters have every bit of an agenda as they claim that mainstream writers do – hence their arguments should be dissected with equal care. Secondly, Singaporeans should go beyond surface appearances and subject the latter-day complaints of seemingly grandfatherly former CUF activists and detainees to greater critical scrutiny. The advanced age and ostensibly sagely persona of such individuals is hardly reason to lower one’s guard.

Thirdly and finally, the subtext of the book is that while Singapore is not perfect and improvements can be made across a range of policy domains, it is important to have the attitude of what Tommy Koh calls “a loving critic”. One should hence avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Instead, a more systematic national effort should go into nurturing Singapore’s asabiyya, to ensure that the next 50 years of nation-building is as progressive and productive as the previous half century. It would be unwise to be remiss in this obligation. In this 50th year of Singapore’s unexpected independence, it behooves us to remember that in the end, Marx was right about one thing: every society contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

About the Author

Kumar Ramakrishna is Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. His book, Original Sin? Revising the Revisionist Critique of the 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore will shortly be published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

The underground network of the Eurocommunists

On 17 December 2014, a former Singaporean, Aravindan Balakrishnan, 74, was officially charged in London with 25 counts of offences including rape, false imprisonment, indecent assault and cruelty to child under 16.

Also known as Comrade Bala, Aravindan was a Marxist Maoist sect leader who has incarcerated 3 women - 30-year-old Briton, a 57-year-old Irishwoman and a 69-year-old Malaysian - over a span of time between January 1980 and October 2013.

The case made headlines when Comrade Bala and his wife were arrested in November last year, after one of the women rang a charity claiming she had been held against her will, sparking a police inquiry.

But who was Comrade Bala? Why was his citizenship revoked?

He is reported to be a Marxist Communist and had been leading a Maoist "cult". His Singapore citizenship - which was registered in 1960 - was revoked in 1977. By then, he was already living in London.

Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry had accused him of engaging in "activities which are prejudicial to the security" of the country, after he was named a radical "closely associated with Eurocommunists".

In particular, Comrade Bala was an associate of G Raman, a former ISA detainee and a key accused of the Eurocommunist wave of arrests in the 1970s. 

G Raman was detained on 10 Feb 77 under the ISA. The government alleged that he had plotted with a group of communists based in Europe to exert pressure through the Socialist International, on the Singapore government, to release hardcore communists detainees, who were still trying to overthrow the governments of Singapore and Malaysia. G Raman had also instigated local groups including and workers to resort to agitation as part of the plan to pressure the government to release the detainees.

Click here to see the full press statement of G Raman. 

In a letter dated 24 Dec 73, G Raman supposedly wrote to Ara or Comrade Bala, enclosing therewith Dr Poh Soo Kai's statement and asking Ara to give it maximum publicity. Comrade Bala was already based in London then.

However, G Raman's most frequent contact was actually a British Marxist by the name of Malcolm Caldwell. Records showed that G Raman kept in constant contact with Caldwell; G Raman informed Caldwell of the latest political happenings in Singapore, while Caldwell conducted publicity efforts in Europe against PAP rule and the ISA. 

However, the web of the Marxist network does not end here. Those who remembered will know that G Raman was supposed to be the lawyer of Tan Wah Piow when Tan was charged for rioting. In the end, G Raman did not represent Tan as Tan defended himself.

Tan Wah Piow later escaped NS saying that something untoward might happen to him and subsequently forged his passport to enter the UK where he remains till today.

The web thickens as we later know that Malcolm Caldwell was the person that helped Tan Wah Piow obtained his permanent stay in Britain. Caldwell got Tan a place at Bradford University. Tan will later graduate from Oxford University.

Caldwell was a well-known academic and he headed the School of Oriental and African Studies at the London University. In 1978, few years after he had helped Tan, Caldwell was mysteriously killed in Cambodia when he was there on the invitation of Communist Khmer Rouge.

Later, in 1987, Tan Wah Piow would be named as the mastermind of the Marxist Conspiracy and one of those arrested during that operation was Teo Soh Lung. Shortly after G Raman was dismissed by Tan, Teo Soh Lung joined G Raman as a junior lawyer; adding more complexity to this Marxist network.

Ho Juan Thai: What the Hansard said

A PAP MP Sam Tan has decided to counter the claims made by self-exiled Singapore opposition politician Ho Juan Thai. 

Read it here and here.

While many know of HJT's version of events and feels that he was unfairly treated by the Singapore government, not many know of how he escape Singapore and landed up in London. These details are actually available in the Hansard of Parliamentary reports. Kudos to WP's JBJ for always asking the tough questions in Singapore.

It is noteworthy to remember that besides being accused of making election speeches that incited racial disharmony (HJT accused the government of murdering the Chinese language), HJT was also wanted for suspected links with A communist terrorist. HJT was said to be linked with Tan Chay Wa, who was eventually sentenced to death in Malaysia for possession of firarms. HJT had hid in the house of Tan to escape arrest and HJT (together with Tan Wah Piow) would later campaign for Tan's case when the latter was facing the gallows. 

Dec 1982 Hansard link here

Minister for Home Affairs Chua Sian Chin: He (Ho Juan Thai) was out to incite the Chinese-speaking population and to stir up communal and chauvinistic emotions.

Mr Ho knew the well-established and clearly stated policy of the government that action would be taken against those who exploit sensitive issues of race, language and religion that would pose a security threat in our multi-racial society. He also knew from the 1972 and 1968 elections that such action would be taken by the government after the elections. Thus on Polling Night, on his own initiative he immediately went into hiding.

On Polling Night, 23 December 1976 when the police went to find him at Block 48A, 123X Dorset Road, Singapore 8, the address he had registered as his place of residence, they could not find him there. The police then looked for him at several other places he frequented including No 64D Nanyang Avenue. But he had managed to flee. The police wanted Mr Ho to answer questions relating to the speeches he had made, and to determine whether he was acting alone or in concert with more dangerous and violent men.

In Mr Ho's letter which was published in the Straits Times on 14 October 1982, he said that he had championed the cause of Mr Tan Chay Wa, a communist terrorist tried and convicted for possession of a firearm and seven rounds of ammunition by the Malaysian courts, in his appeal for reprieve against the death sentence. Mr Tan was a district committee member of the underground Malayan National Liberation Front, a satellite organisation of the Communist Party of Malaya. This is an indication of Mr Ho's political sympathies and possibly, also his affiliations.

No 64D Nanyang Avenue was one of Mr Ho's hideouts. It was next to No 58D Nanyang Avenue which was the official address of Mr Tan Chay Wa. Mr Tan was then wanted for arrest for involvement in Malayan National Liberation Front activities. The police subsequently ascertained that Mr Ho frequently went to Mr Tan's house. When he escaped from the police who went to look for him, he sought refuge in Mr Tan's house for two days. He subsequently telephoned a member of Mr Tan's family through a pre-arranged code to indicate that he had escaped safely.



Mar 1982 Hansard link here

Minister of Home Affairs Chua Sian Chin: The Member (JBJ) for Anson has now produced a statement by Mr Tan Chay Wa which Mr Tan gave on 16th January 1983 before his execution. The Member for Anson had not, however, disclosed how he came into possession of this new statement of Mr Tan Chay Wa. In the statement, Mr Tan claimed that Mr Ho did not have 'the slightest organisational relationship' with him and that he "absolutely did not know Ho Juan Thai and had never seen him".

On the contrary we have evidence that casts very grave doubts on Mr Tan Chay Wa's claim. The Malaysian authorities had informed us in 1979 that when Mr Tan was arrested by the Malaysian Special Branch, he gave the following statement on Mr Ho Juan Thai and I quote:

'Since 1976, a Nanyang University graduate named Ho Juan Thai stayed at Nanyang Avenue area in Singapore. He stayed near our house and used to borrow telephone.

In 1977 (sic), Ho Juan Thai stood in general election on a Workers' Party ticket. As he gave a prejudicial speech during public rally, the police came to arrest him at his rented place. Ho escaped and hid in bush, and was wet because of heavy rain. Subsequently, he sought refuge in our house for two days. Before departed our house he mentioned that he was going to look for his friend (details not known) in West Malaysia. If he was not arrested he would telephone by hitting at the telephone 3 times which meant he had safely escaped police arrest. Later, Ho Juan Thai did make such call.'

Why should Mr Tan Chay Wa discuss Mr Ho Juan Thai at all in his statement to the Malaysian Special Branch if he did not know Ho as he claimed? From his statement Mr Tan Chay Wa clearly had intimate knowledge of Mr Ho Juan Thai, how he had avoided police arrest, was harboured in his house for two days and escaped safely to West Malaysia.

Mr Tan Chay Wa was an important cadre of the CPM underground organization. He remained steadfast to his communist ideology even up to his execution. It was therefore natural for Mr Tan, a communist, to do a good turn for Mr Ho Juan Thai by disclaiming any underground organizational links with him. Mr Tan had good reasons to do this out of gratitude to Mr Ho who had, through FUEMSSO, tried very hard to save him from the gallows. It also made good sense to him to use his last breath to protect and defend Mr Ho his ardent supporter. By doing this, he would also be advancing his communist cause. According to the communist ideology, it is justifiable for any of its followers to use any means including telling a lie and even committing murder to advance the communist cause. A staunch communist terrorist does not believe in afterlife but only in the existence of this world.


THIS IS GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL STAND ON WHY HJT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED A PASSPORT - MAINLY FORGERY OF PASSPORT.

Feb 1999 Hansard link here

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Jeyaretnam is fully aware of the reasons why Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) has not issued Mr Ho Juan Thai a passport. Mr Jeyaretnam had been closely associated with Mr Ho, a member of the Workers' Party, and had acted as Mr Ho's counsel previously.

SIR has not issued Mr Ho a Singapore passport for the following reasons:

a) Mr Ho is required to respond to SIR's queries over the renewal endorsement in his expired Singapore passport. Mr Ho had publicly declared that he amended the expiry date of his passport, which expired in December 1976, to enter the UK in July 1977. If this is true, this may constitute an offence of forgery.

b) Mr Ho has been an Exit Permit defaulter since August 1986. He is therefore required to answer for his Exit Permit offence upon his return to Singapore.

c) Although no warrant of arrest has been issued against Mr Ho, the authorities would like to interview him over his racially inflammatory speeches at election rallies during the December 1976 General Election in which he ran as the Workers' Party election candidate in Bukit Panjang.

Mr Jeyaretnam, acting as counsel for Mr Ho, was informed in 1986 why Mr Ho could not be issued a passport. Mr Ho himself was informed of the reasons in writing by the Singapore High Commissioner in London and MINDEF in 1992, when he applied for a new Singapore passport. The High Commissioner has also told Mr Ho that SIR is ready to issue him with a one-way Document of Identity to facilitate his return to Singapore if he so wishes.