by Teo Soh Lung

A government that holds 78 out of 79 seats in parliament can still be afraid of losing power. This is the sorry state of the PAP the 1980s and even today.

Perpetually afraid of more opposition members entering parliament, it adopted the policy of NIP IN THE BUD since the days of its founder, Lee Kuan Yew.

In 1987, the PAP took drastic measures to ensure that at least two Singaporeans living thousands of miles away from Singapore do not return to contest the general election which must be held before the end of 1988.

Holding super majority in parliament, it was easy for the PAP to amend laws and even the most sacred of laws, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Thus in 1985, the PAP presented a bill to amend Article 135 of the Constitution. Any citizen (including a citizen by birth) who has not returned to Singapore for a continuous period of 10 years may be deprived of his Singapore citizenship.

Tan Wah Piow was one such citizen. He had proven himself to be a thorn in the flesh of the government when he was a young architecture student in the 1970s. They tried to get rid of him by fabricating a riot in the Pioneer Industries Employees’ Union in Jurong. He was charged for rioting and duly convicted by the First District Judge, Mr T S Sinnathuray. He served a jail term and left Singapore, escaping enlistment into the army. Since then he has been living as an exile in London.

In 1984 or 1985, Tan Wah Piow had intended to return home to Singapore. He was prepared to pay the usual fine and jail term for evading national service. He made enquiries from personnel who he thought could assist him. But before he could complete his preparations to return, the PAP government pre-empted him from returning. He received a notification that the government would deprive him of his citizenship because he had failed to return home for 10 years.

Tan Wah Piow appointed me as his lawyer He instructed me to oppose the decision of the government. How could it deprive a citizen by birth of his citizenship? It was against international law! But even before I could take my client’s full instructions, I together with 15 others were arrested under the Internal Security Act on 21 May 1987. Tan Wah Piow was named the alleged leader of the “Marxist Conspirators”. His entire file was taken away when security officers raided my office.

Making sure that Tan Wah Piow would not be able to return to Singapore was not sufficient for a vindictive government. Even arresting another six innocent young people a month later, on 20 June 1987 was not enough. In July that year, the Controller of Immigration issued a notification to Paul Lim Huat Chye, a PhD student at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, cancelling his Singapore passport with immediate effect. It promised to issue a document of identity to enable him to return if he was aggrieved by the decision. The letter read:

Sir

NOTIFICATION

This is to notify you that on instructions from the Minister, the Singapore Passport Nos. 0191976H and A1558215 which were issued to you are cancelled with immediate effect.

2 You are required to surrender forthwith the passports to the Singapore Embassy in Brussels.

3 A Document of Identity will be issued for you to return to Singapore.

4 However, if you are aggrieved by the decision, you may within thirty days of the receipt of this notification, appeal by petition in writing to the Minister.

Sd
LIM EK HONG
CONTROLLER OF IMMIGRATION

Date: 11th July, 1987

It was an invitation to Paul Lim to deliver himself into the lion’s den and be eaten up like the 22 already in detained. Paul Lim asked for the government’s reasons for cancelling his passport. As expected, the government kept silent. A warrant of arrest was also issued against him. Paul was thus compelled to issue a press statement on 18 July 1987. It reads as follows:

“Statement by Paul Lim concerning Minister’s decision to cancel his passport.

On 15th July 1987 I received by registered post a Notification (copy attached below) dated 11 July 1987 from the Singapore Embassy in Brussels in which I was informed that my Singapore passport was cancelled forthwith.

In my reply (copy attached below) I have asked for a written explanation of this decision. However, it is fair to suppose that this decision is connected with the fact that the Singapore government has issued an arrest warrant in my name under the Internal Security Act which permits detention without trial. This notification is clearly an attempt to compel me to return to Singapore and place myself in the hands of the Internal Security Department.

I ask again that I be removed from this wanted list. My political activities in Singapore have never in any way been illegal or illegitimate. If one removes the terms “Marxist conspiracy”, from the Singapore government’s accusations against me, I am only ‘accused of activities which are in reality – and under Singapore law – perfectly legal and acceptable. Talking politics to friends is legitimate and lawful. Describing my political activities and those of others as conspiratorial is no more than an unsubstantiated allegation. The only ‘evidence’ offered by the Singapore government is that provided by confessions of those recently detained – confessions obtained in conditions of “continuous interrogation under extreme psychological pressure” according to Amnesty International.

The PAP government has no right to cancel my passport for my legitimate and legal political activities. “Marxist conspiracy” and “Marxist conspirators” are simply pretexts to destroy nascent sources of a credible alternative opposition – something which the PAP itself claims to wish for.

Sd
Paul Lim
Ferme de Froidmont
1330 Rixensart
Belgique
18th July 1987″

Despite what the PAP government did, Paul Lim continued to contribute to the well being of Singapore. He co-founded the European Institute of Asian Studies (EIAS) in 1989 (see https://eias.org/news/in-memoriam-paul-joseph-lim/ ) and entertained Singapore diplomats when they arrived in Brussels. But as Paul’s friend, I know that he was deeply hurt by what the Singapore government had done to him in 1987. He visited Singapore once at the invitation of a university or organisation and stayed with the Belgium ambassador who was also his guarantor. Thereafter, he never returned. He worked at his institute in Penang for several years. Friends would meet up with him when he was in the region.

He died in Belgium on 21 July 2025

by Teo Soh Lung

On 21 May 1987, sixteen people were arrested and detained under the ISA. Paul Lim Huat Chye who resides in Belgium was named by the Singapore government as part of the marxist conspiracy to overthrow the PAP government using violent means. It was an false and absurd allegation against an innocent man who at that time was trying to finish his PhD thesis at the Louvain Catholic University. That allegation not only interrupted the completion of his thesis, it also led him to lose his Singapore citizenship.

Below is Paul Lim’s refutation of the Singapore government’s false allegation against him:

Paul Lim’s Reply to the Singapore government’s Allegations

I am disturbed by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ statement concerning myself carried by the Straits Times of the 27th May 1987. I am also concerned for the 16 arrested some of whom I know. This is a statement of clarification and refutation.

My first refutation of these allegations is that subtract “marxist conspiracy” and “marxist conspirators” from them, they described legitimate activities for a Singapore citizen exercising his political rights. “Helping” an opposition political party is legitimate, so is discussing party politics. Are we living in a democracy or not?

“Marxist conspiracy” is only a pretext to detain these 16. I venture to say that the real reason for their arrests is in view of a coming election in which the PAP fears that its majority and dominant position would be threatened. Without Operation Cold Store of February 1963 the PAP would’nt have won the September 1963 general election. The PAP, having tasted power since 1959, wants to remain in power indefinitely. It cannot even tolerate criticisms and feedback from feeble Church groups within the Catholic Church which is in a minority position in Singapore.

Secondly, the allegation of a plot or conspiracy from Europe is absurd. I believe that I have been brought into the Ministry’s fabrication of a conspiracy in order to link Tan Wah Piow to Vincent Cheng and the others as I was in Singapore physically at that time. The packaging with such words like “pass messages”, “Provide guidance”, “reminding Vincent Cheng about Tan’s instruction” etc is the only way as the PAP has no factual grounds to substantiate any conspiracy or plot.

The fact that the Straits Times was able to publish notes of Vincent Cheng and a table with my name on it shows that there was no secret conspiracy. Conspirators do not leave trace around nor do they discuss at the top of their voices as I do in coffee shops in Singapore within ear-shot of ISD agents.

Finally I never provided guidance to any of those arrested. Vincent Cheng and the others can think for themselves. They are not my or Tan’s puppets: neither am I at Tan’s bidding. They are civic-minded and upright citizens imbued by religious and humanist beliefs to be concerned with social justice for the less fortunate of society.

What the statement does not say is that in 1983 I was in Singapore for my PhD research at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. In this research I used the Straits Times library and interviewed PAP Members of Parliament, among them ex-Ministers and top civil servants. Will the PAP government now accuse me of conspiring with their own men against their own party? Will this revelation start the witch-hunting of those MPs, Ministers and top civil servants who met me? I have no intention of releasing the names of those people whom I interviewed for this academic purpose. I restate quite clearly that the research was the primary reason for my stay in Singapore.

This primary purpose of research does not exclude my right to meet up with friends among the 16. Why can’t I socialise with them? Why can’t I talk politics with them legitimately and lawfully? In fact to have their views on the political developments of Singapore is also part of my research.

What I am afraid of is that these 16, maltreated and tortured physically and psychologically, would confess to whatever their interrogators want of them and incriminate themselves and others including me. Only a court of law can determine the verity of a conspiracy or plot and this the Prime Minister himself has categorically refused. What has he to fear if he can provide proofs of the so-called conspiracy?

What does the PAP mean by this label of “Marxist” and “Marxist conspirator? The PAP knows very well that it cannot accuse Vincent Cheng, the others and myself of advocating the overthrow of the legitimately elected PAP government by force of arms to set up a Communist State nor can it accuse me of being members of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya.

So, what the PAP seems to say now is that reading Marx is also a crime and enough to make one a mortal enemy of the PAP. Does the study of Marxism in the seminaries around the world make all priests communists and Marxists? In my academic work, I had had to read Marxist literature and mind you, in a Catholic university. In fact this Catholic university had allowed me to come up with a more critical and matured view of Marxism by confronting it with other currents of socio-political thought. At the same time, I had also to take a course in theology which is compulsory for all students. I think a good academic is one who has all -round formation in different currents of thought.

Further, Vincent Cheng, the other Christians and myself are the products of Vatican II which opened the Catholic Church to the modern world, ending the separation of faith and life. To be a Christian is not just Sunday Church going but also bringing Christian values into daily living. Among these values is Christian justice translated as social justice for the poor and destitute. It is towards this “theology of justice for the poor” that Vincent and the others are striving. They are the prophets of social justice fulfilling the prophetic role of the Church.

In conclusion, I demand that I be removed from the wanted list of the ISA, that those detained be released immediately and congratulated for pursuing social justice for the disadvantaged in Singapore society.

Signed
Paul Lim
Ferme de Froidmont
1330 Rixensart
Tel: 02|653.88.56
May 1987