Andrew Loh / With special thanks to Martyn See

On 10 June 1987, Mr Tan Wah Piow released a book, which few Singaporeans would have known or know about.

It was called, “Let the people judge – Confessions of the most wanted person in Singapore.”

The publication was a response to the Singapore government’s arrest and detention of a group of 16 Singaporeans about three weeks earlier that same year on 21 May.

In the book, Mr Tan, who was accused of being the mastermind to the 16 in a “Marxist plot” to subvert the social and political system in Singapore and install a communist state, refutes the allegations and evidence presented by the government. He also provides background to some of his activities in the 70s, particularly the period when he was President of the student union at the Singapore University and his arrest and detention in 1975 for “rioting”, a charge he denies to this day.

In 1976, he left Singapore and has been exiled since then. His citizenship was also revoked in 1987 – on 21 May, the day the 16 detainees were arrested. The government had amended the Constitution in 1985 to stipulate that anyone who has been away from Singapore for a continuous period of 10 years is liable to have his citizenship revoked.

The book also contains the three press statements he released on 28 and 29 May 1987 in response to the arrests of the first batch of 16 detainees.

Referring to the government’s charges against him, Mr Tan said, “I have stated in no uncertain terms that I am not involved in any conspiracy to overthrow the government. I have publicly expressed my opposition to any attempt, by anyone, to set up a communist state in Singapore.”

Mr Tan reiterates, several times in the book, that he believes in working towards democratic changes in Singapore – “within the framework of capitalism, through the constitutional process”.

“As to how we bring about the implementation of the political programmes in Singapore, I stated in no uncertain terms in my writings, letters to friends and public speeches in the United Kingdom, that I sought to bring about political change in Singapore solely through the ballot box.”

“My politics are open and above board,” he says and adds that he is willing to be publicly interrogated by [the government’s] officials in “a neutral place, in the presence of independent observers from the media, church, law society and academic institutions.”

Communist?

Turning specifically to the charge that he is a communist, Mr Tan says, “How could there ever be such a plot to establish a communist state when the so-called “mastermind”, that is, my humble self, confessed in no uncertain terms that I oppose the very idea of turning Singapore into a communist state? Why does the Singapore government insist on calling me a communist when I am not one?”

Mr Tan says that the activities he was involved in were not illegal. “The government, however, chooses to present them in a sinister light,” he says. “Why does the government describe my advice to those who wanted to effect change as subversive and Marxist, when, even on the basis of the evidence produced by the government, all that I suggested was that they should participate in the political process through legal institutions such as political parties?”

The activities they were involved in, Mr Tan explains, had to do with “issues of democracy and the rights and dignity of the common people in Singapore since the 1970s.” He explains that he had called for intellectuals to be more critical of the way things are “managed” and to work towards the “democratization of the country”. This is because intellectuals “are in the best position to explore new ideas”.

Dismissing the focus on the ideologies which has influenced him, Mr Tan says the more important issue is whether his views are contrary to the well-being of Singapore’s political development. “I don’t see how they can be inconsistent with the national interest if intellectuals and professionals are influenced in the direction of actively working for the betterment of society.”

“When they can’t beat you, they call you a criminal”

Mr Tan then turns to the other charges the government leveled at him. One of these is the accusation that he was involved in a “rioting” incident in 1975. Mr Tan denies this and alleges that there was a ‘frame-up”.

The incident took place at the Pioneer Industries Employees Union (PIEU) headquarters in the Jurong Industrial Estate. In his book, he recounts the events leading up to his arrest.

He, along with some workers from the American Marine company and students, were supposed to meet with the secretary general of the PIEU for the second time in a week. On the day of the meeting, however, Mr Tan says that the secretary general was nowhere to be found.

“Ten days prior to my arrest, I had severely criticized him at an open-air meeting where he and retrenched American Marine workers and university students were present,” Mr Tan explains.

He alleges that it was “union officers” themselves who smashed up their own premises at the PIEU and says that at the time of the incident, he was instead seen outside the PIEU office by a Straits Times reporter, among others.

Mr Tan was incarcerated for one year for the “rioting” incident.

Evading National Service?

“Circumstances surrounding the call-up were most extraordinary and improper,” Mr Tan says of the conscription order served on him in 1976. “The facts are simple. I was conscripted into the army to serve in the artillery unit on the very hour of my release from the one year sentence.” He says that the students at the university were genuinely worried that the government was using the military service as a continuation of the political persecution against him. “I too was worried for my physical well-being since ‘accidents’ can easily happen in the army,” he says.

It was then that he decided to leave Singapore for London. “When I came to the United Kingdom to seek political asylum, I enjoyed the support of the World Council of Churches, and the British Council of Churches,” says Mr Tan. “Many other organizations and prominent individuals from all over the world supported my case.”

21 May 1987

Mr Tan sees the government’s allegations of a “communist plot” by the activists to “overthrow the government” as a “convenient excuse to crackdown on all who are critical of the ruling party.”

Within days of the “government smear campaign”, as Mr Tan calls it, against him, he issued a press statement to the media, including the Straits Times. He also gave a “long interview” to the Straits Times’ London correspondent. But what appeared in the paper was “no more than five per cent” of his statement, he says.

“Why is the government so eager to brand me as a communist conspirator, and yet so reluctant to publicise my statements that I oppose categorically any attempt by anyone to establish a communist state?”

Questioning why his statements were not given the same prominence and publicity in the local media to allow him to defend himself, especially since he was accused of being the mastermind of the plot, Mr Tan says there can be only one answer. He called the accusations a “fabricated” plot by the government to “suppress the truth”.

Mr Tan still lives in the United Kingdom.

—–

Here is the television interview which Britain’s More4 News programme did with Mr Tan Wah Piow in 2007.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

起初误判是潮汐政府致歉 印尼巽他海峡遭海啸222人死

印尼巽他海峡周六(22日)晚受到海啸侵袭,截至昨日为止,预计死亡人数已达222人。 由於引发海啸的火山“喀拉喀托之子”(Anak Krakatau)周日(23日)再度喷发,印尼国家灾难管理局(BNPB)呼吁沿岸居民,远离海滩,提防海啸再袭。 根据印尼国家抗灾署发布的消息,尚有843人受伤,28人失踪;有400多所民房、9栋旅馆和10艘船只严重损毁。 据了解,海啸在当地时间22日21时30分(新加坡时间22时30分)左右来袭,受灾情况最为严重的是万丹省的板底兰,单是这区的伤者就多达624人。 其他严重受灾区还包括爪哇岛西部万丹省的西冷以及苏门答腊南部楠榜省的海岸地区。 起初误判海啸   民众毫无戒备 印尼国家灾难应变总署发言人苏托波(Sutopo Purwo Nugroho)担心,死伤人数可能还会增加,因为目前对灾难的评估并不包括所有受灾区。 据了解,事发时国家灾难应变总署,以为只是潮汐的涨潮,还呼吁民众无须恐慌。事后,苏托波对误报致歉,解释由于当时该区甚少有海啸,且并无发生地震,所以一开始误判巨浪是异常潮汐而非海啸。、…

【选举】行动党竞选宣言 称保障国人工作共渡难关

人民行动党秘书长李显龙宣布竞选宣言,主要专注于协助国人在度过冠状病毒19疫情这一大难关,并喊出口号“守护生命、保障工作、共创未来(Our Lives,Our Jobs,Our Future)”. 李显龙总理今早(6月27日)在行动党脸书专页公布竞选宣言,包括重启经济、推动我国经济转型、保障国人职业、拯救企业及提升员工技能。 他指出,若在平常的大选中,该党的竞选宣言将着重在我国的重大发展项目上,如建设裕廊湖区、樟宜机场第五搭客大厦、年长者医疗保健及增建学前教育等。 “但是,今年大选和以往不同,我国面临着数十年来的最严重危机,我国政府的首要任务就确保能够度过此难关。” 他表示,因此行动党的竞选宣言将焦点放在保障国人和外籍客工们的安全,确保我国医疗体系能够挺过这次的疫情。 他补充道,竞选宣言的重点,也包括为了共同度过目前的不确定性和危机,彼此在互助互爱下应采取的措施。

Mixed reactions from netizens over Singapore’s non-interference stance on junta violence in Myanmar

While Singapore is alarmed over the escalating violence in Myanmar, it will…

持工作准证入境 马国人只需居家七天

绿色通道或周期性通勤措施即将在8月10日开放申请,卫生部长颜金勇表示,基于马来西亚冠状病毒19的传播风险和我国相近,因此该国入境的工作证件持有者,只需要依循居家通知七天或以上。 也是跨部门防疫工作小组领导部长的他,是在昨日(8月6日)的记者会上,发表以上言论,并表示该国的染病率比我国低,因此马国入境者所可能带来的感染和被感染风险几乎一样。 他指出,当局是将马国的防疫措施和染病率等因素都纳入风险评估和考量范围后,才决定和该国达成绿色通道协议。 当被询问为什么将居家通知的时间改为七天,而不是14天时,卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授指出,居家通知期是依据冠毒的最长潜伏期而定制,但是当局发现确诊病例多数在入境后的五、六天内就会出现症状,因此才选择将居家通知时间缩短。 “因此,针对染病率较低国家的入境访客,我们正在考虑缩短他们所需遵守的居家通知期限。” 麦锡威提醒道,周期性通勤服务只开放给由新加坡公司申请,让马国员工入境我国的工作者,以及要求入境马国的工作者,但是,公司却不能通过这渠道申请让在我国工作的马国籍员工回到马国。 此外,已成为新加坡永久居民的马国人士也无法使用的周期性通勤服务,他们在回到马来西亚时,都必须接受14天隔离措施及自费。 他指出,曾考虑过让马国籍永久居民也享有周期性通勤服务,会做出以上的不同安排,主要是因为这群人士在入境后所面对的行动管制以及其他措施。至于有哪些不同安排,他表示会在接下来的发布会中公布。 我国目前的冠毒检测费用介于200元左右,但是麦锡威指出,随着我国检测能力的提升,预计检测费用将会减低,让需要接受检测的入境者都能负担得起。