I refer to the article “Minister of State Sam Tan counters political exile Ho Juan Thai’s account of why he fled Singapore in 1976“ (Straits Times, Nov 10).
It states that “In a commentary titled “The truth from a Singapore exile” in TOC on Nov 2, Mr Ho said, among other things, that he left as he believed his personal safety was at risk. He claimed that Internal Security Department officers came to arrest him some time after the 1976 election – one with his gun drawn.
But he added that despite having “great reservations”, he respected the law and legal process in Singapore.
“Please charge me in an open court for the crime you alleged I have committed. I will obey the court order and return to Singapore with my head held high, but not with the potentially dangerous arrangements the government has offered – that one-time entry pass could, quite literally, be the one-way ticket to my indefinite incarceration,” he said.
He maintained that concerns about his personal safety also lay behind why he left Singapore without applying for an exit permit: “The only reason I did not apply for an exit permit to leave Singapore and did not have my passport extended by the authorities was because I acted under duress as the police threatened to shoot me and the government accused me of crimes I did not commit. Would you not flee if a gun was pointed at you?”
But in Monday’s letter, Mr Tan said that Mr Ho’s reasons were unconvincing and that he “makes contradictory claims: on the one hand, that he was a victim of police intimidation, and on the other, he was willing to turn himself in for questioning.”
“These are contradictory and unconvincing reasons for him absconding to Malaysia, from where with the help of Tan Chay Wa (a Communist Party of Malaya cadre later sentenced to death in Malaysia for possessing firearms), he ended up in London,” Mr Tan said.”
Examining the logic of the arguments?
- Given the history of detentions under the Internal Security Act (ISA) – wouldn’t anyone be reasonably afraid of being arrested and detained?
Also, the extent of fear and the resources available, sacrifice of being in exile , etc, were different for arguably everyone who was “afraid”.
In my view, Mr Ho Juan Thai was not contradicting himself, as he said that he was willing to be questioned provided he could be assured that he would be charged in court with the opportunity to defend himself, rather than detention without trial.