Hansard, 1955-07-22

Mr William Allmond Codrington Goode, Chief Secretary, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be permitted on this solemn occasion to introduce a matter of domestic note? I should like to refer to my friend, Mr Goode, whom you have just sworn in. He is today the proud father of a one-day old daughter, and I think that all Members of the House would wish to join me in congratulating him and wishing well to Mrs. Goode and the child. Hon. Members indicated assent.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Members, I have a message from His Excellency the Governor. It is dated the 22nd of July, 1955. This is the message: "I understand that certain motions are before the Legislative Assembly this morning which concern the interpretation of the Order-in-Council, 1955, and that these motions arise out of recommendations made to me by the Chief Minister for the appointment of four Assistant Ministers, and of correspondence, thereafter, in which the Chief Minister took up the question of the exercise of my discretionary powers under the Order-in-Council. The exchange of letters has been presented to the Assembly at this sitting. Honourable Members will recollect that on the occasion of my Installation, only three weeks ago, I gave an assurance that I intended to give my wholehearted help and guidance to the Council of Ministers in the execution of their policies and in the task of running the Government of Singapore, in order to bring about conditions in which the next stage in the advance towards self-government becomes not only desirable but possible. I am sure that, so soon after my arrival in Singapore, it is not necessary for me to renew these assurances. It is now contended that my discretionary powers under the Order-in-Council, which are expressly excluded by section 19 (1) (i) from consideration by the Council of Ministers (which is the principal instrument of policy under the Constitution) are to be interpreted in a manner which would amount to an amendment of the Constitution. When the Chief Minister asked me to appoint four Assistant Ministers, I was required by Section 32 of the Order-in-Council to consult him and then to exercise my discretion as to whether or not these appointments should be made. While, of course, I would at all times give the greatest weight to the views of the Chief Minister, it will be noted that the language of Section 32 of the Order-in-Council puts upon the Governor merely the obligation to consult the Chief Minister, and there is no provision corresponding to Section 19 (2) requiring the Governor to act in accordance with recommendations made by the Chief Minister. If it had been intended that the Governor must act in accordance with the advice given, express provision to that effect would have been included. The position regarding my discretionary powers under the Constitution is this, that, where the Governor is bound to accept the advice tendered to him, it is provided for expressly, and this can be seen by reference to Section 19 (2). The Order-in-Council clearly preserves to the Governor certain powers and duties, and these powers and duties cannot be given up, or delegated, to, the Council of Ministers without a radical change in the form of the Constitution. The Chief Minister now contends that I should interpret the exercise of my discretionary powers in a manner, which would amount to an amendment of the Constitution. As the Order-in-Council is made by Her Majesty's Government, any amendment of it must be subject to negotiations with Her Majesty's Government. It is not a matter, which can be settled merely between the Governor and the Chief Minister. I should add that, yesterday morning, I received a message from the Secretary of State in which he confirmed my interpretation of the use of my discretionary powers under the Order-in-Council, and in which he expressed the hope that any amendments to the Constitution now under consideration could be deferred for discussion with him during his forthcoming visit to Singapore. I feel bound to place on record my regret that the issue of an amendment to our new Constitution should have been raised in this way, namely on a relatively minor matter concerning the appointment of four Assistant Ministers, and that it should have been raised at a time when it may very well jeopardise the progress which has been made in the last three and a half months by the present Government. I consider that it will be a great pity if this record of progress, and the prospects of stable government, bringing, confidence to the community, are lost as a result of the issue now raised." I have had copies prepared. They will be distributed now to hon. Members. Copies of the Governor's message distributed.

Before the Hon. The Chief Minister moves this motion, I would like to make the position clear. I allowed the motion to be tabled under the provisions of Standing Order No. 71 because the publication of the correspondence between His Excellency the Governor and the Chief Minister, as the background to the main motion before the House, and the terms of the motion itself, have made it impossible for any reference to the Governor to be excluded, if the motion is to be debated with any degree of thoroughness. Hon. Members, no doubt, are aware and will appreciate that any reference to the Governor must be completely impersonal, and any other approach will be out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very much indebted to you. You have made my speech, and it needs no further explanation. I move the motion that stands in my name, namely, That the provisions of Standing Order 31 (7) and (8) in so far as they refer to the Governor be suspended for the purposes of all discussions under the next item.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the discussion that is to follow, we have two parties to it - His Excellency the Governor on the one hand, and the Chief Minister on the other. Standing Order No. 31(7) and (8) seeks to remove the protection from one party, whereas the other party is still covered by paragraphs (6) and (9) of the same Standing Order. It would only be fair, Sir, if the above paragraphs of the Standing Order are also suspended so as to accord equal treatment to both parties. I therefore wish to move an amendment that the following words be inserted after the word "Governor": "and the provisions of Standing Order 31 (6) and (9)", so that the whole motion before us would read as follows: That the provisions of Standing Order 31 (7) and (8) in so far as they refer to the Governor and the provisions of Standing Order 31 (6) and (9) be suspended for the purposes of all discussions under the next item.

May I have that in writing, please? Amendment handed in.

You are making it under Standing Order No. 71?

Yes.

Well, I must have the expression of the general assent of the Assembly. Hon. Members indicated dissent.

The amendment is inadmissible.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the provisions of Standing Order 31 (7) and (8) in so far as they refer to the Governor be suspended for the purposes of all discussions under the next item.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That the Speaker do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of this House that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves through their elected representatives; And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, should be adopted; And that where the Governor is required by the provisions of the said Order in Council to consult with the Chief Minister before taking any action, he should act in accordance with such advice; And that the Speaker do report back to this House on the reply he receives from His Excellency the Governor to this message, and that thereafter this Assembly do take such action on motions without notice as the circumstances may require. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote part of the message which Her Majesty the Queen graciously sent to this House at its very first sitting: "I am glad at the opening of the first session of the Legislative Assembly under the New Constitution of Singapore to express to my people in Singapore my great satisfaction at the significant advance in their constitutional progress which is marked by this occasion. The Council of Ministers will now have to deal with the many problems of Government and upon them will fall the chief burden of responsibility for the continued advancement and prosperity of Singapore and for the welfare and safety of its citizens." These, Mr Speaker, Sir, are almost the very first words that this Assembly heard. "... I intend to give my wholehearted help and guidance to the Council of Ministers in the execution of their policies and in the task of running the Government of Singapore." These are the words, Sir, the first words which Singapore heard from our Governor on the occasion of his installation. "Significant constitutional progress"; "whole-hearted help"; brave, reverberating words - words full of wonderful promise, and I fell for each of them, hook, line and sinker. I believed every word, and today, Sir, I find that this "significant constitutional progress" infused by this "whole-hearted help" gives us not even power in so minor a domestic matter as the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries, that we call Assistant Ministers. And the basic reason - the vital reason - given by His Excellency at an informal meeting with the appointed Ministers for refusing the power lay in the following words: "It was never the intention of Her Majesty's Government that this constitution should provide for rapid self-government. It was intended to provide for slow progress." Slow progress! This, then, Sir, is the spirit of the Rendel Constitution - the scraggy hand of death clutching at the brakes of progress. Sir, I would say to the gentlemen opposite that the tempestuous honeymoon between this side of the House and theirs is over - the broken crockery, the black eyes, the tumultuous recriminations. Today we face a common foe. The claws of the beast show through the velvet glove. I do not come here today as Chief Minister, as head of the Government. I have withdrawn the Whip from my side of the House. I have made it clear to every Member that he will and must speak according to his own conscience, and vote according to his own lights. I come here today - and I hope you come here today - as Malayans, and I speak, as a representative of the Malayans of Cairnhill, to you, the representatives of the Malayans of the rest of the territory - Singapore. This is the common danger - do we accept the position that this constitution is not to provide - repeat not - for rapid self-government? Maybe what has happened in the past fortnight should have been no shock to me. There have been incidents from the word "Go" which should have warned me, and I can tell you of the few that I may tell. The rest that transpired in the Council Chamber I cannot. On the very day I was appointed Chief Minister, I asked for my office and discovered that I had neither office nor staff nor even a piece of notepaper. I was told I was Minister for Commerce, and Chief Minister merely meant that I was the leader of the appointed Ministers. I was further told I had no right of co-ordination over the other ministries. That would have been the end, right away. Fortunately, common sense prevailed. My representations were accepted. Then - it may seem to you a minor matter, but it is in the same pattern - I discovered at public functions that a host of dignitaries, including my friend the Chief Secretary, were supposed to take precedence over me. The Governor said I must accept this position. He (the Chief Secretary) was my senior. To my own very acute embarrassment, I had to act like a bad-tempered prima donna in order that there should be proper respect for the people of this territory in the person of their chief elected representative. That question is not even now completely solved. Then came the Emergency Regulations, and it was graciously conceded that we were in an awkward position, having promised to repeal them, if we now thought that they might be necessary for the welfare of the people. And as you have read in the correspondence, it was officially suggested that we should blithely come to this Chamber, repeal those Emergency Regulations, gain the credit from our electors, and then the Governor would impose them under his special powers. That was perhaps the biggest shock I have ever suffered - that there should be such contempt for the people's representatives; that it should be assumed that we would act in so filthy and dishonest a fashion; cheating you on this side of the House, cheating the public, only to gain dishonest kudos and to evade our own responsibility to our people. We made it quite clear that if the Governor ever used his special powers against our advice, the Ministers would resign en bloc. And now we have what His Excellency calls "the relatively minor matter of the appointment of Assistant Ministers". Now, please, let us get this straight. We are not considering the merits or demerits of the appointment of junior Ministers. That will come on Tuesday on a motion to be moved by the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong). I was startled this morning to learn from the Straits Times that I am a very astute politician, and it seems that I am indulging in the Machiavellian manoeuvre of enticing you to vote for this motion in order to prejudice your attitude on the motion that is coming up on Tuesday. I repeat, this motion is on a constitutional issue, entirely independent of the merits or demerits of the appointment of junior Ministers, and no person who votes for or against this motion is in any way bound, or prejudiced in any attitude he may seek to adopt on Tuesday next. Let this be quite clear. I think there is a letter here. It merely confirms several conversations. My letter of the 20th of July: "Your Excellency, I thank you for your letter of yesterday's date. I should like to make it clear that it is no longer a question of the appointment of Assistant Ministers - I am prepared to reconsider my advice. The issue as I see it is whether you are to exercise your discretionary powers under the constitution in accordance with the advice of those whom you have to consult before exercising such powers, or whether you are free to reject such advice at your will and pleasure." The position, gentlemen, is this: that if we are to have the responsibility, we must have the power. We are not, and will never be, prepared to be nothing but gold-plated shock absorbers for colonial rule. We have accepted office in complete faith - that this constitution was intended to bridge the present period to the period of full self-government and ultimate independence. We have, I think, demonstrated sufficiently, despite the short period, our sense of responsibility, believing that we had the power. It must be obvious that if we have not the power, then we can never achieve that standard of responsibility, that agonising heart-searching, that comes of having to act on one's own decisions. If we are nothing but advisers, you cannot expect of us the responsibility of rulers. That responsibility is expected, and has been demonstrated. At the time when we contested the elections, nobody was good enough to tell us that this constitution was never intended by Her Majesty's Government for rapid self-government. In fact, you know, and I know, we were led to believe completely the contrary. For myself, I believed it utterly, completely. Without any reservations, I believed. I had studied the constitution. I have repeatedly said - and I said it again as a warning at the installation - that this constitution is inadequate, but it is workable. If infused with a spirit of goodwill, it is workable and can be an instrument for bridging the present to the period of self-government and independence. I remember at the very first sitting of this Assembly saying these words: "I think it comes ill from us to question the good faith of a nation that seeks to give us its hand to help us to our feet. The present constitution is an earnest of that good faith. I have faith in the English." That was exactly three months ago. I meant it. Now let me say this: if the spirit of generous goodwill is to be absent, if the spirit of negation is to direct the working of this constitution, I shall no longer have faith. If this constitution were, to me, a sham and a cul-de-sac, not a bridge, then, as the P.A.P. have so repeatedly maintained, it would have to be destroyed - not worked. I am not a destroyer. I do not know how to. But when the time comes - and it seems near - that this is proved so, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see me no more in this House. The technical aspects of the issue immediately before us can best be gathered by looking at the message from His Excellency, and pointing out the flaws. May I refer you, gentlemen, to that paragraph which reads: "When the Chief Minister asked me to appoint four Assistant Ministers, I was required by Section 32 of the Order-in-Council to consult him..." That is correct. "and then to exercise my discretion as to whether or not these appointments should be made." That is not correct, and I will prove it to you. Section 32: "The Governor after consultation with the Chief Minister may from among the elected Members in the Assembly appoint Assistant Ministers to assist Ministers in the discharge of their duties and functions." And it is said the word is "may". Gentlemen, if I say to my clerk: "If the Little Sisters of the Poor come for a donation, you may give them $100." Do I give him the discretion - to give or not to give, to give $50 or $10? I give him an authority. That section 32 is an authority to the Governor to appoint - it is not a discretion to the Governor. I had hoped that the Hon. the Attorney-General (Mr E. J. Davies) would take part in this debate, but I understand he will not, so I shall leave those books, and I will refer to just three, if you will permit me, Sir, as a curiosity, if you like, to prove to you that the word "may" in the English language in that context means "shall" and "must".

Order, Mr Chief Minister. I just want to find out whether you are making this Assembly the forum for the interpretation of the Order in Council. If you are, then you are out of order; but if you are asking the Assembly for an opinion, of course you are entitled to.

May it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indicating to the Assembly - I hope with your permission - my own view and the basis on which that view was arrived at, and I am seeking from them, through my motion, an expression of their own views. Now, I know how much ancient legal authority is respected. I have not had much time to go back for it, but I have got one here - l683 - I hope that is old enough, and it says this: The Lord Keeper giving a judgment in the case of Alderman Backwell in Vernon's Chancery Reports at page 152: "The Lord Keeper declared that though the words in the Act of Parliament were that the Chancellor may grant a commission of bankrupt, yet that 'may' was, in effect, 'must', and it had been so resolved by all judges." I have not been able to go back to that case of Henry I. But here is another. McDougal and Patterson, 1851. It is reported in the Law Journal, 1852, Court of Common Pleas. This is the judgment of the Chief Justice: "The statute which saith that the Chancellor may grant is as if it had been shall grant or ought to grant, but he cannot grant ex-officio but on request of persons interested." And this is explained, "which we think support the rule that when a statute confers an authority to do a judicial act in a certain case, it is imperative on those so authorised to exercise the authority when the case arises, and its exercise is duly applied for by a party interested and having the right to make the application. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the word 'may' is not used to give a discretion but to confer a power." One more. The case of the King versus Mitchell, 1913: I King's Bench at page 561; the head note reads: "The phrases 'thereupon the Court of Summary Jurisdiction may deal with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an indictable offence' and 'the offence may be prosecuted on indictment', the word 'may' is an enabling word empowering the Court to give effect to the right of the accused." There are dozens of cases. If the Governor is supposed to have a discretion, which is alleged on his behalf, there are 17 times in the Order in Council of 79 sections which say: "The Governor may in his discretion". Why could they not put in for the 18th time "may in his discretion" after "consultation with the Chief Minister"? Let me show you. Section 15: "The powers conferred upon the Governor by sections 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this Order shall be exercised by him acting in his discretion." If they had wanted "in his discretion" in section 32, could they not have added "and 32"? That is one instance. You may be sure there are more. I am not going to read all the seventeen, Mr Speaker, Sir. Section 45, Mr Speaker, Sir, says: "The Governor acting in his discretion may appoint Nominated Members." That is interesting, because although he acts "in his discretion", nevertheless it is only proper, as in fact you are aware of in this case, the Governor did consult the Chief Minister and did, in part, accept his view. He did not accept my view completely, but he had the right, because "acting in his discretion", he was constitutionally in the right to reject completely my opinion, or to accept it in part as he did, because the phrase is there - "acting in his discretion", he shall appoint the Nominated Members. He consulted me, as he was entitled to, and as he should have. In section 32, it is not "acting in his discretion", he shall appoint. It is "he may, after consultation with the Chief Minister". Let me give you just one more, and this is particularly interesting - section 60 (4) and (5). Section 60 is "Introduction of Bills", and you cannot introduce certain Bills except with the Governor's permission. I read: "Except with the recommendation or consent of the Governor signified thereto, the Assembly shall not proceed upon any Bill or motion which, in the opinion of the Speaker or the Attorney-General, relates to or affects any of the matters set out in the Third Schedule to this Order. The powers conferred upon the Governor by subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall be exercised by him acting in his discretion." So that whatever the Attorney-General may say, or whatever the Speaker may say, the Governor has the right, after consulting them, to say, "I act in my discretion." That is not what was intended by section 32 and all the other sections. It is not only section 32. The principle is so important that I would not care if I did not have any Assistant Ministers for the rest of my term, such as remains of it. So there we nave the question of discretion. Think of it again - "The Governor may, after consultation, appoint". Quite obviously, these are enabling powers, because otherwise the Governor has no power to appoint. And from that, gentlemen - I hope I am not boring you, but it is important to this House - we come to Jennings on the Constitution of Ceylon, Sir Ivor Jennings, the great constitutional lawyer, at page 99: "The other Ministers are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Prime Minister." Never mind about Ceylon, but just look at the principle. "Since the Prime Minister has to establish and maintain a majority, he must have a large element of discretion, and indeed the last word, in the formation of his government; but the King, and to a smaller degree the Governor-General, from his impartial position, is able to advise and to warn. The Governor-General's approval should therefore not be regarded as a formality. The Prime Minister's responsibility is a heavy one. He has to satisfy so many competing claims with the knowledge that he may make more enemies than friends. The Governor-General may not be very familiar with the politics of this country, and will not be able to advise with the authority of the King ..." etc. I come next, gentlemen, to the immediately succeeding paragraph in the Governor's message: "While, of course, I would at all times give the greatest weight to the views of the Chief Minister, it will be noted that the language of Section 32 of the Order-in-Council puts upon the Governor merely the obligation to consult the Chief Minister." I have already shown you why not. Further: "... and there is no provision corresponding to Section 19 (2) requiring the Governor to act in accordance with recommendations made by the Chief Minister. If it had been intended that the Governor must act in accordance with the advice given, express provision to that effect would have been included." Well, the opposite is quite true too, that if the Governor had been intended to be able to act in his discretion, express provision would have been provided, as it had been provided 17 other times, and as it could have been provided in section 15. But let us see why in section 19 (2) there is that express provision. Now it is a matter of constitutional law and constitutional practice that where you are required to consult someone, you act on his advice, and that being so, it was thought important not to leave it at that but to make a very vital provision for an exception. That is why section 19 (2) is there, because if you read section 19 (2) it does not merely say, "The Governor shall act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers", but it has provided that "if in any case in which he shall be obliged to consult with the Council concerning the exercise of any power the Governor shall consider it expedient in the interests of public faith, public order or good government that he should not act in accordance with the advice of the Council, then he may act against that advice, but shall, without delay, report the matter to a Secretary of State with the reasons for his action." The whole thing there - subsection (2) of section 19 - is around that exception to the duty of the Governor to act in accordance with constitutional practice to accept the advice of his Council. It is not introducing a principle of interpretation; it is a principle of constitutional law that requires no introduction. But it is for introducing that proviso that you have that immediately preceding paragraph. Then we have this in the Governor's message: "The Chief Minister now contends that I should interpret the exercise of my discretionary powers in a manner which would amount to an amendment of the Constitution." Now an amendment to a written constitution, as I understand it, is a written amendment. What I seek here is no amendment at all. It is merely an acceptance of the normal constitutional interpretation. It is an acceptance of a spirit of generous interpretation in favour of the people's elected representatives. His Excellency ends up on the point that he regrets that a constitutional issue should have been raised on a minor matter. Gentlemen, I accept the position that, whether I have additional Assistant Ministers or no, it is not vital; but it is, I sincerely believe, conducive to the welfare of the people. And I repeat: if he would concede the principle, I am prepared to reconsider the question of Assistant Ministers. It is not a minor matter - the constitutional issue - but if the appointment of Assistant Ministers is so minor, then there is all the more reason why His Excellency should not interfere in the domestic conduct of his Ministers. Let me add this: I am very happy it is a minor matter. It is, in fact, one on which there are many gentlemen, not only those opposite me but in the country - many honest people - who disagree with me - the question whether I should have the Assistant Ministers named for the posts indicated. Consequently there can be no emotional content aroused about my being refused because of the immediate issue, and I would much prefer that that should be so, rather than that the issue should be raised on a far more important matter which would arouse the emotions of the country, already exacerbated by frustration so near to the surface as has been recently proved. I would rather take the position of disadvantage and fight the principle on a minor matter. But it is a major principle which may probably have tragic consequences if it is sought to raise it on a matter that would emotionally affect the people of this country. Sir, I have taken the liberty of strewing this desk with legal authorities, seeking to prove that His Excellency was ill-advised in taking the stand that there is any necessity for amendment; in taking the stand that, in fact, he has a constitutional discretion. But I should like to take it now on the far broader basis - on the human basis of the people of this territory. We have waited for this moment. We have believed in this constitution. Never mind about the gentlemen opposite. We have believed in it, sincerely believed in it, and we have wanted to work it, straining every nerve in our body to make an honest job of it. I have said that to apply a restrictive, unimaginative construction to this constitution on the basis that it was never intended that we should have rapid self-government is to destroy all faith and to destroy all possibility of peaceful progress. It is for that reason, Sir that I am appealing to this House that I have taken the liberty to call this House, on a matter of urgency, to debate not the legal technicalities, but the spirit in which we are in future to proceed. I am asking this House to appeal to the Governor to redirect his steps, whatever may have been the intention of the framers of the constitution and of Her Majesty's Government at the time the constitution was given. It should be recognised that today it is imperative that the dynamically evolving political life of this country should be recognised, that our abilities for responsibility and power should be recognised, and that this constitution and any other constitution to follow should be interpreted in the broadest and most generous sense possible, in favour of the people's elected representatives. It is in this spirit that I have come before you, Sir, and taken the liberty of calling other Members away from their jobs to come here to consider the motion. The first part of the motion says: "That the Speaker do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of this House that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves through their elected representatives." Sir, I do not need to debate that any more than I need to debate the fact that the blood in my veins is red, or to fear a single dissenting voice in this House. The second part of the motion says: "And that as a demonstration of the good faith"- because it is now a question of good faith, not a question of constitution. I took the constitution, believing in the good faith that infused it, and knowing how it could be worked. But it is not being worked. "And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council. 1955, should be adopted. The next one, Sir, follows from it; but since we are expected to dot our i's and cross our t's, I have put it in. It may be tautologous to a lawyer, because the next really flows from the first one. If the provisions of the constitution are to be construed in a manner most liberally in favour of the people's elected representatives, then the next one, that where the Chief Minister is to be consulted the power should be exercised in accordance with such advice, naturally follows. But let us get this straight, Mr Speaker, Sir. There are many sections in which His Excellency has to consult the Chief Minister. You may say it is dangerous, but he has always this expedient: "I dismiss him." Short and simple. If you put that safeguard - and it is there - if that attitude of interpretation is adopted, then there will be a far greater sense of responsibility in rejecting advice, just as there must be a greater sense of responsibility in offering advice, because on the advice offered, the Chief Minister must act; and on rejecting the advice offered, the Governor must seek to form a new government. It is only at that height and accepting the fact that power goes with responsibility, and that both power and responsibility - in their real character - should be vested in the people of this country that we can evolve in any fashion towards self-rule: not just driving Daimlers with liveried chauffeurs and flags and palatial houses; mansions to be built for the Chief Minister to entertain. Sir, I have said at the beginning that today I am not here as head of the Government arguing a political case. I come as a Malayan speaking to fellow Malayans. I have sought, on a non-party basis, to obtain the approval of this motion from one who could be termed the leader of the Opposition. A de jure leader of the Opposition, there is none. But one gentleman opposite has plagued me so consistently and so vociferously in the past - and he is an able man - that he is virtually the leader of the Opposition in the eyes of the public. I refer to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). I have said to him that I would like him to rise, in the name of the people he represents and - with respect to the others - as the de facto leader of the Opposition, to second this motion. I do hope, Sir, he will see his way to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second this motion. Like the Chief Minister, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could disagree with the terms of the motion. No one can doubt that the people of this country are determined to be rid of the Colonial Civil Service, agents of a European power, serving the interests of a European people some 8,000 miles away. Only a Malayan - an Asian born and bred in this country, all his life at the wrong end of the colonial stick - can feel the intensity of the antipathy to foreign control, or the intensity of that passionate desire to assert control over his own destiny. I am happy today to join my friends on the other side of the House on this motion. It does not go as far as my Party would wish it to. It is, nevertheless, a great step forward. I am grateful for the kind remarks the Chief Minister has made today, but, in supporting this motion, I shall not dwell on the legal aspects of the matter, for I believe that the solution is a political and not a legal one. At the same time I would like to say that I am glad he has split the two issues - the junior Ministers, and this question of principle. I would find myself in a very embarrassing position if I had in any way to associate myself with the question of the appointment, not in principle, but the appointment in practice, of four Assistant Ministers, of the four persons named to the four Ministries concerned, in a House of 25 elected representatives. This meeting is a most solemn occasion - perhaps more solemn than has been reflected in the fighting speech that we have just heard, for the constitutional principles at stake are very grave. This is a constitutional crisis in every sense of the word, but it is one which was accidental. We all have our own guesses as to how it began. We, and indeed the whole of Singapore, know the pre-Rendel politicians - Mr Mak Pak Shee before he became Member for Geylang - Mr Speaker, Sir, I am most decorous in these matters - Mr Lee Choon Eng before Queenstown was carved out; and Mr M. P. D. Nair in those days when he represented the Naval Base in Seletar. They are the few remnants in this House of that phoney political - Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown) rose -

Point of order?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out to the Member for Tanjong Pagar that I was not a Member of the old Legislative Council. Neither have I had any connections with that Council, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise if I had not made myself clear to the Member for Queens-town, but they are a few of the remnants of that old crowd of pre-Rendel politicians, of whom I believe the now semi-retired Progressive Party leader was a shining light. Irrespective of how this crisis began, we are faced with a constitutional issue of dangerous magnitude within four months of the elections under the new constitution. If this crisis is not resolved, I can see only three possible developments: the first, a new coalition; the second, a suspension of the constitution; the third, fresh elections. A new coalition, with the Progressive Party leader, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), as the Chief Minister; or will it be the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy)?

Thank you!

Sir, I find it difficult to imagine a more ludicrous situation outside Alice's Wonderland, but with none of the charm of Lewis Carroll's delightful fantasy!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the P.A.P. Secretary would avoid personalities and suggest himself as the Chief Minister!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not do that. I went to the people on April 2nd on a completely different programme. I told them what the Chief Minister was reluctantly compelled to tell them today - that this constitution is inadequate. But whatever the permutations and combinations of Progressives, Independents, and deserters from other ranks, no coalition could give this constitution any chance, if it ever had any, of working. The second alternative is to suspend the constitution. I know two groups of people who would cheer with joy at this. One group we would find in the Tanglin Club, the company directors, and even stockbrokers like Mr Charles David Cox. These are the solid, industrious citizens of European countries who are congenitally incapable of understanding why the Asians would want to stop them from making profits for their shareholders, since, in their opinion, profits for their shareholders mean prosperity for Singapore. They believe that if only you could shut up this dangerous talk about freedom and Socialism from well-meaning but silly Labour Front politicians, and from very dangerous P.A.P. politicians, then peace and prosperity of the colonial period would prevail. [Interruption.] How astonishingly accurate one can be!

Order, please.

But they would perhaps be less happy than the Malayan Communist Party. A changed international situation, and, even more important, a changed internal Malayan situation with the government in partly representative hands, has brought about a change of tactics. A peace offer was made, and was spurned, in my opinion unwisely. What better proof could they ask for than a suspension of the constitution - to convince the people that the only way to be rid of the colonial masters of this country is by force and armed violence? Sir, Malaya is not British Guiana. In British Guiana, perhaps, one could get away with it. But in Malaya, in Asia, I say to Mr Sutherland that the choice lies between a Communist Malaya, with all that that implies, and an independent non-Communist Malaya, passionately determined to preserve and produce wealth for its own citizens; not prepared to accept any direction or control from outside, but willing to trade and deal with their former masters on equal and friendly terms. The third alternative would be fresh elections. There are three possible consequences if we have fresh elections. The Progressive Party might win, and the constitution will work! The elections might produce exactly the same result, and we are back to where we started - in a constitutional deadlock, with the Labour Front-U.M.N.O.-M.C.A. Alliance in roughly the same proportions as they find themselves today, blocked by an unresolved constitutional issue. Or there could be an election with this constitutional issue as the only plank in the election platform of all Parties who vote for this motion. Then you would have a new constitutional crisis, with round-table talks before this Assembly is even convened. The first possibility, a Progressive victory, is the one that would suit Britain best. This was a constitution tailored by the British and the Progressives for the Progressives. It was only this lot of timorous people who would have found this constitution ample for their timid programme. Sir, they may have fond hopes that perhaps the country has forgotten what they really represent, and that perhaps they could go back and befuddle the people into voting for them. Sir, I hold the contrary view. The sudden retirement of their Party heavyweights after their election defeats; the assumption of office in their Party of youthful lightweights, whose only redeeming virtue is their youthfulness; their pathetic, pitiful lack of self-respect and self-esteem, crawling to their former colonial masters every time the world looks unkind; a general strike, and off they crawl and creep to see the Acting Chief Secretary; four junior Ministers, and off they send a cable to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and they want me to go with them and see the Governor - [Interruption.]

Order, please.

Sir, these have earned them the contempt of even their former friends. Let me tell them that if they -

Order, please. Is this strictly relevant to the issue before the House? If the Member for Tanjong Pagar can persuade me that it is, he can carry on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have stated in my opening remarks that I consider this a most important debate, because what we are facing is not a legal interpretation of a section of the Order in Council, but the whole question of whether the framework, the set-up, is going to crash and collapse to the ground. To illustrate why in my opinion it would crash to the ground, I am pursuing to its logical conclusions the possible developments out of this situation. I am pointing out now that a Progressive Party Government, after a fresh general election, to work the constitution, which could only have been worked by them, is not possible. The other alternative which might come out of a fresh election is for us to go back and fight on the same old issues, and we shall come back in roughly the same proportions. The Chief Minister would then be in the unhappy position, after all the heat, the sound and fury of the hustings, of being back to where he started. Sir, in such a situation, we go back again to either a new coalition or a suspension of the constitution - two alternatives on which I have already dwelt. The only other possible outcome of a fresh election, and one which those who support this motion will have seriously to consider, if there is no solution to this constitutional dispute, is for those Parties and individuals who support this motion to go back to the country and fight on this issue, and this issue alone. When 25 people have been returned with a mandate to negotiate on this issue, we shall then have a new constitutional position, and we shall face the British Government, not in Singapore but in Whitehall, with a solid phalanx of representatives who have been directed to do a specific task.

That is self-government now.

Sir, it could be that if the People's Action Party were allowed to convince the Chief Minister - self-government now! But the People's Action Party would even fight with him on this issue, "He must take the Chief Minister's advice - now!" We would fight an election with him. But such a situation, within four months of the constitution, is unnecessary. It would be unfortunate because, much as the Chief Secretary (Mr Goode) would like to believe that I am a wicked and evil person, who would have no more joy than to wreck this whole constitution, I would say this: if the Chief Minister feels he could work this constitution, if it is worked in the spirit in which he thinks it ought to be, then every opportunity should be given to allow him to work it. Speaking for myself, I do not for one moment believe that the People's Action Party could sit in conference with His Excellency the Governor, govern within the framework of this constitution, and do the things we want to do. But that is another matter. For us today, it is important to realise that the issues are grave, and it is important that we should make this clear to the people of Singapore and to Her Majesty's Government. I find it difficult to believe that if they are acquainted with the facts, that if they understand the grave implications of a breakdown over such a relatively minor issue, they will be unyielding and unrelenting. There are times and places where rattling the sabre would work, but Malaya and Singapore in 1955 are neither the place nor the time for that. No nation can more skilfully and gracefully withdraw from a difficult and embarrassing situation than the British. They have more skill and more experience than my friend opposite, the Chief Minister. As I see it, it is not impossible, if there is reasonableness and common-sense, to find a solution which could be honourably accepted by both Her Majesty's Government and the Chief Minister and his colleagues. We, Sir, have always said that this constitution was inadequate. I said once, in an election forum broadcast, that the task of the People's Action Party in the Assembly would be to expose, expose, and expose, the hollowness and hypocrisy of it all. But I must confess that not even in my wildest dreams could I have envisaged such a delightfully embarrassing position for my friends on the other side of the House. Three months ago the Chief Minister stood before us there, and, in his most solemn court-room manner, glared at us so intently that we nearly trembled, and as he, in a most dramatic gesture, took off his heavy spectacles, said: "We have come here as one Government - elected Ministers, nominated Ministers, official Ministers.", I had my doubts and my misgivings on that occasion. I tried to point out the differences between them - that they were the Queen's men, the three of them, and perhaps another, the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas). I was generous - partly the Queen's man and partly the Chief Minister's man.

Not that, Sir!

Be that as it may, I would not wish to be unfair on this solemn occasion. But could we not have avoided all this if we had gone in, not so much in an exuberance of good faith, but with cold, calculating logic? If the Labour Front felt that, limited as the constitution was, it could be worked for their programme, for their aims and objects, then let us find a way out to make this experiment succeed. Sir, on that occasion the Chief Minister reminded us that the Government honoured a principle known as "collective Ministerial responsibility". On that occasion he went out of his way, personally, to undertake an odious duty on behalf of his colleague - his then colleague - the Hon. the Chief Secretary, of justifying the continuance of the Emergency Regulations. He was a brave and, in my opinion, a sincere man. He took upon himself the full burden of his office in the full spirit of sincerity, to which only he could give such intensity of expression. I could not express, as he has done on so many occasions, how much confidence he had - one, in the constitution; two, in the good faith of the people who would watch over the constitution, the British Government and the British officials with whom he has to work. They must feel it is a matter of regret that he should, at this hour, ask for a demonstration of their good faith. I support that motion because I feel he is justified, if not on the legal interpretation, then on the political principle involved, in asking for good faith, and in giving an interpretation to this Order in Council which could help it work. I was a little disappointed earlier at this sitting when the Chief Minister said that he had taken off the Whip. I would have liked to see his Official Ministers, having dissented from him, come here and speak and vote for him, as he said once upon a time they would do. Sir, I never believed it. Maybe it is because I have so little faith in colonial administrations. If we were wicked and evil men, we would incite and instigate the Chief Minister and the Colonial Secretary, I beg his pardon, the Chief Secretary, the Officer Administering the Government now turned Chief Secretary, to smash this constitution and suspend it, and let the issue be a straight one, between Communism and Colonialism. Very few people have doubts as to what the result of such a contest would be, though not many would be bold enough to express it publicly. I hope that such a catastrophe will never come to pass. I hope that a reasonable and sensible solution will be worked out between the British Government and the Chief Minister and his colleagues. If they fail, the consequences to this country will please no one who has the welfare of this country at heart.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I can get rid of the broken crockery of this honeymoon, I would like to say something. The honeymoon is over - but there is a new marriage between the Labour Front and the P.A.P. - I wonder how long that will last.

As long as colonialism lasts!

Order, please.

I do not really mind interruptions, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, the first part of the motion before the House reads: "That the Speaker do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of this House that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves through their elected representatives." I am not moving an amendment, Sir, but in my view - the Chief Minister hoped that we would all agree with this motion - it is redundant. You would be conveying to His Excellency the Governor what he already knows full well. But the phrase "people of Singapore", I think, requires a little clarification. What the Chief Minister means, I think, is a section of the locally born non-European population of Singapore. The rest are probably, in his view, stooges - I think that is the word used - but I am glad to see that he has not yet got round to calling them "running-dogs". Paragraph 39 of the Rendel Report reads as follows: "If the principle of Nominated Members is accepted, we consider that the widest measure of discretion should be left to the Governor in exercising this power of nomination, in order that he may be free to appoint Members qualified to voice or defend whatever interests he may consider in danger of being overlooked, and whose appointment would, in his view, be to the best interests of the Colony at the time." Sir, I do not pretend that the cap fits me perfectly, and although I hold no mandate from any person or group, I think I might claim, on an occasion like this, to speak for my own people - the expatriate British of this Colony. And we are, after all, a section of the people. All Parties claim to speak for the people. There is the People's Action Party people; there are the Labour Front followers. My people may not all be workers - they work too hard for that - but no doubt the Chief Minister will in due course make quite clear what he means by "the people". In view of its new and sinister connotations, it would be nice if that odious word "colonialism", and also the two words preceding it, could be excised from the motion. It would not make any difference to the motion. I am still not moving an amendment, Sir. Colonialism - that wicked, corrupt system which is at the root of all our evils. Yet, I believe that there are thousands of Asians in this island who have had very little, and still have little, to complain of under colonial rule, and I do not believe that, as the Chief Minister once stated that Professor Silcock was supposed to have said, they have been unbelievably corrupted thereby. I would suggest to the Chief Minister that it would have greatly benefited himself and his Party if he had concentrated on selling to the public the idea of self-government by proving by deeds that his Government is efficient, instead of periodically adding fuel to the fire of anti-colonialism. The Coalition Government cannot, I think, point with any great pride to its achievements in its three months of office, although admittedly they were very difficult months. The dynamism of the Chief Minister calls forth the admiration of all of us; but many of his Ministers are men without any great experience, and the public in Singapore are quite genuinely perturbed about the idea of appointing some of his Labour Back-benchers to the posts of Assistant Ministers. Ask whom you will, Sir, in this beautiful island - the Chief Minister is always reminding us that our island is beautiful; well, it is not without charm, but it is nothing very wonderful; in fact, much of its beauty is man-made, including the taming of the jungle by colonial pioneers -

Without the coolies?

Labourers!

Ask whom you will, Sir - be they Chinese, Eurasians, Malays, Indians or British - whether they think conditions in Singapore at present under the Coalition Government are as good as they were under colonial rule even a few months ago; and in many cases the reply would be in the negative, varying only in degrees of emphasis! You may be sure, Sir, that a crisis such as this, while providing something of a theatrical spectacle and ephemeral fame for our orators, is doing Singapore and its trade, which is the life-blood of the place, no good at all. However, Sir, I would like to make it clear that I am not standing up here to say that I do not want this country to get self-government. My own Scottish ancestors fought the English for hundreds of years and only gave up, of course, when, by successful infiltration they realised that union was definitely to their advantage. I have many Asian friends in this city - at least I think I have - and I personally do not wish to see the colonial regime retained any longer than is necessary. But I must remind the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar that one has to learn to crawl before one can walk.

We do not crawl.

I cannot see how this issue, where the Governor acts according to his views on the Order in Council, should lead the Chief Minister to believe that Her Majesty's Government are deliberately protracting the granting of self-government to this country. Sir, I have carefully perused the correspondence exchanged between His Excellency the Governor and the Chief Minister, and when I read it at home - it was delivered to my house at 7 o'clock in the evening - it certainly did all sound to me like a storm in a tea-cup. Unfortunately, as this sitting of the Assembly bears witness, it is very far from that. But, without fear of being called a sycophant, I agree with His Excellency's interpretation of the Order in Council; and incidentally the Chief Minister's forensic erudition in the matter of "may" and "must", I am afraid, leaves me quite cold. I cannot really believe that the word "may" in section 32 means "shall". Anyway, Sir, I am saying, without fear of being called a sycophant, I agree with His Excellency's interpretation of the Order in Council. If I did not believe it, I would say so with the plainness of plainness, but I sincerely believe it. As for the second part of the motion, in my opinion, no demonstration of good faith is necessary. Self-government will come, but not overnight. Can anyone deny that there is in Singapore at the present moment an uneasiness amongst all the business communities and a lack of confidence which did not exist before? I assure you, Sir, it is true. Some people may doubt our bona fides, but we, the British, who are perhaps a little sad at the passing of the colonial regime, which seemed to us, no doubt mistakenly, to be a just and fair system, soon became quite enthusiastic about the idea of self-government within the Commonwealth. The change was inevitable, but also desirable. The Chief Minister himself has said that he is convinced the English are conscious of the evils of colonial rule. Well, it seems a pity to me that he is beginning to doubt the good faith of Her Majesty's Government, just because he does not see eye to eye with the Governor over an interpretation of the Order in Council. In Whitehall they have a great deal of wisdom and experience, as even the Member for Tanjong Pagar has granted, and I believe they are anxious to grant these territories self-government and independence. But, in my opinion, the flogging of the anti-colonial horse by the Chief Minister, and "Malayanisation or bust", whatever that may mean by the People's Action Party - a curious expression to come from a lawyer! - these things do nothing but retard the process. Not all their histrionics will convince a great deal of the people in Singapore otherwise. Besides, all that has been said about colonial rule is far from true, and some of the utterances in the Press have been positively mendacious. The Chief Minister has said - he said it this morning - that the Rendel Constitution is workable, but is unworkable when you have arrogant colonialism in power and in the saddle. Now, to me, the statement makes no sense at all. It seems to me that it is his Government that is displaying the arrogance. Some of the Chief Minister's statements have been so naive as to make even political tyros like myself laugh. There was some reference to a football team, and he discovered, quite late, that he was not the captain of it. He discovered also, rather late, that the Rendel Constitution did not make him, in fact, the Prime Minister. Well, what did he expect? There has never been any suggestion that the implementation of the Rendel Constitution would give this country self-government. At one time I thought his idea was that he would be quite content with self-government in four years. Now, over some minor issue, everyone is storming and raging for self-government immediately. I really cannot understand it. After all, the Chief Minister must see before him every day, on the letterheads, the words "Colony of Singapore". It is still a British Colony, you know, but a lot of people seem to have forgotten it. I hope it never becomes a colony of any other power, either occidental or oriental. Now the Chief Minister is trying to mould the Rendel Constitution nearer to his heart's desire -

That is evil, I suppose?

- and threatens resignation if his interpretation of it is not accepted. I trust this motion before the House will be defeated, and that the Chief Minister will readjust his views on the functions of His Excellency the Governor. I hope, if he does, that he will not concern himself with such minor matters, but get on with the serious business of governing.

How can you govern without power?

Order, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the mover and seconder of the motion, it seems to convey to us that there are only two people in Singapore who are fighting for democracy and self-government, for getting rid of colonialism and all that. That is not so. We stand for the same thing. We stand for independence. [Interruption.] The motion before this House, however, really has the appearance of a champion of democracy fighting for the rights of the people. The whole motion would have had my support if it were not for the fact that it has been the offspring of -

Of the Chief Minister. So what?

- a shameful manoeuvre, and drafted in such a way calculated to deceive all of us -

I object to those terms, Mr Speaker.

To the Chief Minister rising on a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. I take the strongest exception to the suggestion of deceit and shamefulness. I ask that you, Sir, request that those remarks be withdrawn.

Hon. Members must remember their Standing Orders in this debate as in any other debate, and it is quite clear under the Standing Orders that it shall be out of order to use offensive amid insulting language about Members of the Assembly. No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member and the personal conduct of the Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. This debate must carry on on an impersonal basis. Any personal attack will be out of order. Will the Member for Serangoon please withdraw those expressions?

Mr Speaker, if it is your opinion that it is so, I withdraw. I will explain that the action has never been intended on the person, but it has been on the whole Party. Sir, the wording of the motion, really, has been drawn in a very clever manner so as to mix up what would be an ideal of the people with what would have been the aim of a Party to get what it wanted. I feel that the people of Singapore have not been deceived by that. I know they have not been hoodwinked by such an intention of that Party to gain more power. Indeed, today, we should have been standing in this House discussing actually what should not be the motion that is before us, but probably a motion on the censure of the Government on what the Chief Minister has termed "a very minor matter". I put it to you, Sir, if the matter has been very minor, why was it allowed to develop into a constitutional crisis? Now, all of us know definitely that the business, starting from two weeks ago until now, arose from the appointment or the proposed appointment of Assistant Ministers, and that as the days went by, it has been twisted and twisted and twisted until it is out of recognition by anybody. It is no more the issue that was intended. The Chief Minister has now shifted his ground, and put forward an ideal to the people, an ideal which the people stand for, in order to cloak what has been a failure behind the scenes. Now, Sir, you would ask whether this thing, which is called a very minor affair, should have developed into one that is considered as a constitutional crisis. It is very generally known in Singapore that right from the very word "go", there had been dissension within the ranks of the Labour Front group and that dissension was no other than over the distribution of portfolios, and that unless something was being done by the Chief Minister, there would have been threats of desertion from the Government.

Nonsense!

Is the Chief Minister rising on a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir, in which respect - I should like to use some terms. Unfortunately, I am not prepared to -

Just give me your point of order, Mr Chief Minister.

I object to the allegations, Sir, that I am acting in an improper fashion, and I do ask, this time, that he be made properly to apologise with respect and, if necessary, suspended. Disgraceful!

I have already ruled that no Members shall impute improper motives to any other Member. I have indicated the Standing Order. I ask the Member for Serangoon to be very careful of what he says. [Interruption.] Can I have order, please? After all, the prestige and dignity of this House is in your keeping, gentlemen. Let us have that properly kept. Will the hon. Member please withdraw any imputation?

I am sorry, Sir. I withdraw what I have said. Well, Sir, this matter which had been linked up with the appointment of Assistant Ministers has been allowed to develop into a constitutional crisis, and the Chief Minister, in the motion, has asked us to agree with paragraph No. 3, the essence of which being that he be allowed to be the sole interpreter of the Order in Council, and that the Governor should take his advice. Sir, the first and second paragraphs of the motion receive my support. I am agreeable to them. The third and the fourth parts, I do not agree with, because if this were done, it would have created a new type of constitution. It would have been giving more powers to the Chief Minister, whoever he may be -

I like that!

Let us have some order, please.

As it is now, as we all know, public opinion has been such that the appointment of the four Ministers has never been well received. Yet it has been pursued. I would say that if public opinion has been consulted and taken into account, such a crisis would never have arisen. If more powers were to be given to that office, it would mean more dictators. It would mean either Singapore is ruled by the Governor or that Singapore should be ruled by the Chief Minister; we would have a system whereby what one person says will go. We do not agree to that set-up of the new regime, and I therefore move that the third and fourth parts of the motion be deleted. The parts to be deleted read: "And that where the Governor is required by the provisions of the said Order in Council to consult with the Chief Minister before taking any action, he should act in accordance with such advice; And that the Speaker do report back to this House on the reply he receives from His Excellency the Governor to this message, and that thereafter this Assembly do take such action on motions without notice as the circumstances may require." And substitute therefor the following: "That this House does not accept the Chief Minister as the sole interpreter of the said Order in Council." Sir, I beg to move.

Can I have that in writing, please? Amendment handed in.

An amendment has been proposed to the motion that the third and fourth paragraphs of the motion be left out and that the following words be inserted: "That this House does not accept the Chief Minister as the sole interpreter of the said Order in Council." I propose, hon. Members, to suspend this sitting until half-past two, and I will then give my decision as to whether or not that amendment is admissible. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12 noon until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I indicated that I would consider whether the amendment proposed by the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) was admissible. The point which exercised my mind was whether or not the amendment is, in effect, a direct negative of the third paragraph of the motion. If it is, then, of course, the amendment is out of order. I have considered the matter purely on those lines and have decided that that is not so, and I therefore allow the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment. The Government opposite has chosen to throw this country once more into conditions of crisis. The crisis is unnecessary and unreasonable. It is unnecessary because the Chief Minister sees fit to twist the issue of whether or not a Government of eighteen Members should be allowed as many as fourteen Ministers into a constitutional wrangle as to whether the Governor or the Council of Ministers has the last word in all matters. The two questions cannot be separated from each other. The Progressive stand is the same as that of many Members of the Opposition, the same as that of the majority of Press comments, and the same as that of the overwhelming bulk of public opinion, namely, that it is not in the interests of good government to have fourteen Ministers in a House of thirty-two, of which only eighteen are on the side of the Government, particularly as the intention is to add inexperience to inexperience, or to use this issue to work up a constitutional crisis. The substantive motion before this House today attempted to obscure this fact, and it is a political manoeuvre, the type of which this country is getting somewhat tired, manufactured to forestall the motion put down by the Opposition Parties and due for debate in this House next week. This is the issue, and no amount of statements and contradictions by the Chief Minister can obscure this fact, this simple fact. I am convinced that the public has not been misled, even if the Chief Minister has now the assistance of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I support the amendment now before us, because the substantive motion, if approved, could lead to a revolution and not evolution in our constitutional progress, and could encourage the concept that government is to be based, not on democratic but autocratic methods. The fundamental point is not whether to vote for or against the present constitution, or whether to vote for or against colonialism - in this Chamber, a few months ago, I stated that the Progressive Party had done more than any other Party to send colonialism on its way out - but whether to vote for or against a new brand of rule fashioned by the Chief Minister to suit himself and nobody but himself. This is a very vital matter on which each Member of this House must clearly cast his vote according to his conscience. We of the Progressive Party must remind the Elected Members of this House, and through them the public at large, of one important fact. If the constitutional issue is to be provoked as to whether the Governor or the Council of Ministers is to rule, the Chief Minister has no right whatever to speak on behalf of the people of Singapore, without the backing of this Assembly in his position of leader of a minority Government. In this Assembly, the Chief Minister's group, the Labour Front as represented by ten seats out of thirty-two, owes its majority in the House, in the ultimate resort, to the fact that two Labour Front men were chosen as Nominated Members by the Governor, and to no other fact whatever. I would remind the Chief Minister of section 47 (1) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, which reads as follows: "Every Nominated Member of the Assembly shall hold his seat therein during the Governor's pleasure." Constitutionally speaking, therefore, whether he likes it or not, the Chief Minister is head of a minority Party, and retains his position in a very real and double sense only during the Governor's pleasure. In saying as he has said in his letter dated the 12th of July, 1955, addressed to His Excellency: "I, as Chief Minister, responsible to the people of Singapore cannot take orders either from Your Excellency or from the Colonial Office.", he is arrogating to himself a position which he does not, in fact, hold, either according to the letter or the spirit of the constitution. It is his own individual interpretation of what he wishes to read into the Order in Council, as Counsel for the Prosecution and the Members of this House apparently acting as a sort of jury, an act which, to my mind, is something of a flouting of the constitution and a challenge to ordered government. This House is not the place for arguing out the interpretation of the constitution on an emergency motion - [Interruption.]

Order, please.

The Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall) and those on the opposite Benches who support him on this issue would do well to bear in mind that he is not entitled to say that he speaks for all the people of Singapore. He represents at best fourteen per cent of the electorate and less than one per cent of the entire population. Before he can choose a constitutional issue on which to cross swords with the Governor, he must, in the first place, obtain the views of the Assembly. In this particular case, he did not do so, but chose an issue which does not have the Assembly's approval, namely, that of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. He created -

Order, please. The Member must not anticipate a motion which has not as yet been argued.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he created the crisis first, and then summoned a meeting of this House to help extricate himself from his difficulties, calling his erstwhile opponent, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, to his support. The Member for Tanjong Pagar saw fit to throw scorn on the Member for Serangoon in words which, to say the least of it, were not in good taste; he has made sly and somewhat slighting references to a member of the Progressive Party who is not in this House, and he has chosen to describe the Young Progressives as a group whose only virtue is their youthfulness. Perhaps, he might remember that the only guide the P.A.P. has ever given to youth is to lead school children to strikes and disorders -

You will have to prove it!

Has the public forgotten this? Have hon. Members forgotten this? Has the Chief Minister forgotten this fact about the Party that is his new-found ally? If the Member for Tanjong Pagar thinks that by seconding this motion he can wipe his Party's slate clean, he had better think again. Sir, let us return to the main issue. I repeat: this House is not the place for arguing out the interpretation of the constitution on an emergency motion. We of the Progressive Party accept the first two sections of the substantive motion with no reservations; for the reasons I have stated, we reject the third and the fourth. The Progressive Party represents the views of 38,000 of the electorate as against only 42,000 represented by the Labour Front Government, and we believe that we represent the views of several thousands more, when we state we condemn this twist of a relatively minor administrative question into a headlong constitutional challenge. We move this amendment, as we cannot allow a Member of this House to seek, as he has sought, by implication today to arrogate unto himself the right to be the sole interpreter of our country's constitution. Sir, I beg to second.

An amendment has been proposed that the third and fourth parts of the motion be left out and the following words substituted in the place of those parts: "That this House does not accept the Chief Minister as the sole interpreter of the said Order in Council." I shall first put the first part of that amendment, that is: That the words after the word "that" in the first line of the third paragraph of the motion proposed to be left out, be left out. That is the first Question before the House, and in debating that Question, hon. Members will know that they can, of course, touch on the second part of the amendment, which is: That in the place of those words, the following words be inserted: "That this House does not accept the Chief Minister as the sole interpreter of the said Order in Council." The first Question is, `That the words after the word "that" in the first line of the third paragraph of the motion proposed to be left out, be left out.' I should warn hon. Members that if any hon. Member wishes to leave out only part of those words, he must indicate that he wishes to do so now: otherwise, if that motion fails, then no hon. Member will be allowed to delete any of the words from the third and fourth parts of the motion. I hope I have made myself clear.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I support the amendment. We have all read the correspondence between His Excellency and the Chief Minister. There is one point, and it is a sordid one, that stands out - the now notorious case of the four Assistant Ministers -

There is nothing notorious about it.

Order, please, Mr Chief Minister.

This is the issue We could have disturbed the Chief Minister, but I think it is not nice of his position to -

Order. Will the Member for Telok Ayer please proceed?

This is the issue which the Chief Minister, with great ingenuity and abortive reasoning, has tried to enlarge into a spurious constitutional issue -

Order, Mr R. Jumabhoy. Will you please take your seat? I will read out the Standing Orders again relative to personalities: "It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Assembly. No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member. The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose." Mr R. Jumabhoy, will you please bear those Standing Orders in mind as you proceed?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for pointing this out. I just wanted to explain only. If it has hurt anybody, I am sorry about it. The Chief Minister seems to think that it is perfectly in order to waste the time of the hon. Members by summoning them to this sitting on these pretences to debate an issue that is purely of his own making, and a crisis born in his own mind. It had better be left there and not on the floor of this House. I should like to know the reason why any of us here or outside, or, indeed, the Governor should accept the Chief Minister's interpretation of the Order in Council. Why should the Chief Minister dictate to us'? Sir, we will never submit to dictation. Be benevolent: or in this case, malevolent. Let us look at the Chief Minister's motion. Let us admit that it is worded very cleverly. Let us realise that, even so, it is devoid of substance. We who are dedicated to the cause of freedom feel that the Chief Minister's principal resolution is but to gain cheap publicity. Is there any doubt that the first aim of the colonial people is to put a speedy end to colonial rule? Freedom is our birthright. We will fight for it, but when the Chief Minister puts it in a motion before this House, it only gives a chance to entertain and amuse us, if that is possible. The Chief Minister is a lawyer, and I am told he is a good one. Our law courts are open to all, and it has been laid down that any question of interpretation can be taken to the courts. Mr Marshall read several statements -

Order, please. You should not refer to the hon. Member by name.

Sir, may I ask on a point of information? It is the Chief Minister who spoke to us on this motion. You want me to say "the Hon. the Chief Minister"?

Order, please. Can I read out the Standing Order: "No Member shall refer by name to any other Member."

Refer to him as "the Hon. the Chief Minister"? Is it all right, Sir?

Thank you.

I wonder how many of us understood those statements from the legal books. It is a pity that the Hon. the Attorney-General is not going to give to this House the benefit of his advice on this subject. The Chief Minister has accepted the Rendel Constitution. He has been vacillating whether it is workable or not. He has reached two different and opposite conclusions. How can the Chief Minister get down to the serious business of the Government? But he does not want to resign. No honey-bee can truthfully say that it does not like honey. I think the Chief Minister likes his post. He has made a constitutional issue of his difference of opinion with the Governor. If we vote against the motion, those of us who seek re-election will be losing the chance of getting re-elected.

People do not want to.

Order, please.

I would request the gentleman to resign and try against us

With pleasure.

He has overplayed his hand and he knows it. I want him to admit it. The Press of Singapore, this past week and yesterday, fully exposed this stand on the four Assistant Ministers. Our clever but not smart Chief Minister has brought this motion before the House today, but if the lives, honour, welfare and the well-being of the workers and the people of Singapore were at stake, this motion could not have been here. I consider it a joke. The chaotic state of affairs that the country is drifting into is my concern. It should be his concern, and he should try to do away with this chaotic state of affairs and get the government running properly and peacefully for the interest of the people. To me and to all responsible Assemblymen and Ministers, this is of paramount interest, lf we had been summoned here on the issue of the present state of strikes or the improvement of the workers' lot, I would have been the first to back him up in his efforts: but what are we here for? The newspapers have made us these last few days aware of it. People all over the world were told a few days ago that our Chief Minister was going to resign, if his demand for the four Ministers would not be fulfilled. Then we are told that he will wait, possibly till the Secretary of State arrives here. Sir, we can bear it no longer, and I hope he will definitely resign.

To make you -

Thereafter, yes, I will tell you the -

Order, please.

Yet, again, we were told the same evening that perhaps the Chief Minister had changed his mind. Lo and behold! After consultation, he has deferred his decision to resign. Sir, I feel sorry that my good Friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar has seen fit to make fools of many of us over here. May I say, Sir, it is not oratory which runs the country'? We have two orators here. I quote our Chief Minister the Hon. Mr Marshall as number one orator. Of course, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Member for Tanjong Pagar -

Mr R. Jumabhoy, will you - [Interruption.]

The Member for Tanjong Pagar may stand second. What has oratory done to this country? Nothing but chaos. If you want the country to run smoothly, you require good administration. Oratory is not necessary -

Good businessmen![Interruption.]

Well, so far, businessmen have been running it very well, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar has made the point that this is an Assembly of twenty-five Elected Members, and that if we were to resign, the same people would come in. But even the P.A.P. has not made any headway to get them returned in a majority. Therefore, he wants to go on with it. I say, if he wants to go on with it, well, he has to work within this framework. If you do not like the constitution, resign en bloc -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

On a point of order.

I think what is being said by the Member for Telok Ayer is entirely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the amendment.

The Member for Telok Ayer has probably forgotten what the amendment is. [Interruption.] The amendment is not only to leave out the third and fourth parts of the motion, but also to insert: "That this House does not accept the Chief Minister as the sole interpreter of the said Order in Council." What the hon. Member has just said perhaps would be quite appropriate in arguing the main motion, but not the amendment.

Sir, I was speaking on the amendment, but, at the same time, in his earlier speech the Member for Tanjong Pagar had made references as to whether to resign, or to remain, and so on. If that is not in order, then I will not talk on that -

Order, please. The hon. Member will be given the chance to speak on the original motion afterwards. We are now dealing with the amendment. If he will confine his remarks to the amendment, he can still speak on the original motion later on.

All right, Sir; thank you very much. I will take the chance later on, if that is possible. Sir, I support the amendment on the ground that the Chief Minister, as the Member for Tanglin has said, does not represent the people of the colony. He has given statistics, and if any Party has a clear majority in the House, then it is possible that one may accept it, but as it stands today, the Labour Front has only ten elected Members, and as such, they cannot speak for the people. I would not say that the Governor should never accept the Chief Minister's advice in the way he wants to interpret it. I support the amendment, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a great pity that Singapore has to face such a crisis today, as it is in my opinion absolutely unnecessary, and has been created by the Chief Minister because he is unable to have his way. He has aptly compared himself to a prima donna. Prima donnas are full of tantrums and impatient of any opposition to their demands. At the present moment, after four months of government, the stock of Singapore is very low. Instead of getting down to work to gain the confidence of the public in his Government and settling the many problems before us, he has made a mountain out of a molehill, and tried to have his way by making the refusal of two out of the four Assistant Ministers he asked for a constitutional issue, on which he is prepared to resign. Surely, before he makes this constitutional issue, he should, at least, have obtained the views of this House as to whether we are prepared to support the appointment of four additional Assistant Ministers or not. There is ample evidence to show that not only we on this side of the House, but the public are much against such appointments. It is a great pity that the Chief Minister has not graduated from his profession as a lawyer for the defence to the high post of Chief Minister which he holds today. He has even conducted his arguments this morning to support -

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I do not think what the Member for Paya Lebar is talking about is relevant to the amendment. Has he also forgotten what the amendment is?

Probably Mr R. C. H. Lim has forgotten the amendment. I will read it out again: "That the third and fourth parts of the motion be left out, and these words be inserted - 'That this House does not accept the Chief Minister as the sole interpreter of the said Order in Council.' " The debate appears to be revolving around the Chief Minister. Please carry on, Mr Lim Koon Teck.

It must be necessarily so, because he is the chief actor. He has even conducted his arguments in support of his motion in exactly the same manner as he did in his very successful appearances in the courts. He has turned the Assembly into a court-house and the Members of this Assembly into jurors, and with great ability, he has tried to persuade us that, for his convenience, the word "may" whenever the Governor consults him should read "shall". Sir, in other words, he is asking the Governor to be an additional Chief Secretary and he to be the Governor. If he wants legal interpretation, he should go to the courts, where there are legally trained men to deal with the points there raised, and not to all the untrained Members of this House with the many law books which he hurled at us. The Chief Minister has cleverly put over this issue as a patriot and made his seconder the Member for Tanjong Pagar. We have had the strange sight today of Judas being welcomed as a long lost brother, setting forth on a joint expedition. We wonder what will happen on the way!

Progressive massacre!

The Member for Tanjong Pagar says that the original motion, which he seconded must be treated as a political issue and not as a legal one. He appears to agree that legally the Governor's interpretation of the constitution is correct, but that this is much more than a political issue. We are asked here to say that the Governor should no longer use the discretion given to him under section 15 of the Order in Council. This section reads: "The powers conferred upon the Governor by sections 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this Order shall be exercised by him acting in his discretion," Section 32 of the Order in Council requires the Governor to consult the Chief Minister, but the appointment of Assistant Ministers is made under section 11 of this Order, which gives him the power to exercise his discretion. This constitution has been accepted by the Coalition Government when they accepted office, and there is no doubt that the Governor has legally exercised his powers under this constitution.

On a point of order, Sir. I think it is a point of order, Sir. May I refer, Mr. Speaker, Sir,to the fact that, quite unwittingly, the hon. and learned Member, trained in law, has completely misled the House by quoting section 11? May I suggest, Sir, that he read it before he proceeds?

It is hardly a point of order, Mr Chief Minister. You probably can refer to it when you speak.

Section 11 of the Order in Council deals with the appointment of officers. It says: "Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force in the Colony or to any Instructions from time to time given to the Governor under Her Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet or through a Secretary of State, the Governor, in Her Majesty's name and on Her Majesty's behalf, may constitute such judgeships and other offices for the Colony as may be lawfully constituted by Her Majesty...". Well, Sir, I think the word "offices" does not - The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir. Does the Member for Paya Lebar take it to mean that the Secretary of State could appoint a Chief Minister?

No, the section is quite clear, the Governor through -

On the instructions of the Secretary of State!

That is so - "through".

That is your -

Order, please.

We of the Progressive Party are no less anxious than the mover of this motion to see a self-governing Singapore. [Interruption.] I was wailing for a long time for that laugh, and strangely I do not hear any mention of orchids. We do not believe in asking for a ride in a carriage and snatching the steering-wheel from the driver while the carriage is in motion and before the driver has even learned how to drive. We believe in orderly progress, that the constitution is workable, and that we shall get our independence without having to crawl for it. Our aim is that Singapore should take over government on the most advantageous terms -

Order, please. Are you confining yourself to the amendment?

Yes, Sir.

Which is, "That the Chief Minister is not the sole interpreter of the Order in Council."

- for the benefit of the people as a whole, without having to pass through the turmoils and crises which Singapore has seen during the last few months. Sir, there is one point that I want to mention. I submit that the motion before the- House is inextricably bound up with the question of the appointment of the four Assistant Ministers, as this is the direct cause for the Chief Minister taking this action. At board meetings of companies and, particularly, of other associations, any person having an interest in the issue, especially if it is a pecuniary one, does not take part in the debate and abstains from voting. Such a rule is a sound one and applies more forcibly to government business. I hope the traditions of good business and sound government will be observed in this House. Sir, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendment, because I am quite sure, in my mind, that this House should not be turned into a courthouse to interpret the constitution in a manner which the Chief Minister desires.

Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment. I listened to the Member for Tanglin very carefully, and when he enunciated his theory that the Chief Minister does not represent the people of Singapore. I thought that the whole of the Progressive Party did not understand what is democracy. In the House of Commons, which consists of 625 Members at the present time, the Conservative Party has a majority of only about 60 Members, and if the Member for Tanglin dares to say that the Prime Minister of Britain does not represent the nation, I would not know which democracy he believes in.

Majority government.

Even then, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Prime Minister speaks for the nation and acts for the nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin also raised some points on the question of electorate, and I thought for some time that the Progressive Party aimed at including those of the electorate who did not go to the polls as supporting the Progressive Party. I think. Sir, in all earnestness, that the Chief Minister enjoys the confidence of the majority of the people of Singapore, and the demonstration we witnessed outside this House this morning is a proof. The amendment, if successful, would amount to non-confidence in the Chief Minister and, as such, I vehemently oppose it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak against this amendment. Having spoken when I seconded the motion, I will not be given an opportunity again to speak. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Members for Telok Ayer, Tanglin and Paya Lebar do not really understand the grave issues we are facing. If it were a question, today, of just scoring a debating point off the Labour Front or the U.M.N.O.-M.C.A. Alliance, then I would say their descent, somewhat crudely, to personalities would have served that purpose. But before this debate continues, I would ask them to remember, and to correct me if I am wrong, that there are no possible developments other than the three I have enunciated.

Order, please. Will the Member for Tanjong Pagar confine himself to the amendment?

I will, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then, having decided that there are no other alternatives, they will have to ask themselves the meaning of this amendment, This amendment, if it were carried, would mean a vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister and his Government. If they want a new coalition, or suspension of the constitution, or fresh elections, then they can proceed on this amendment. If however they do not desire any one of those three possibilities, then I would ask them to consider the matter carefully, and ask themselves whether it would not be advisable to leave the motion as it is, and allow Her Majesty's Government and the Chief Minister and his colleagues to work out a solution. The Member for Telok Ayer has slightingly referred to the courage of my Party in fresh elections. If he should ever doubt that, we will provide him with an opponent in Telok Ayer in the next elections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a House that is not unadorned by legal talents sitting on the opposite Benches, I am more than a little surprised to find that though an hon. Member stands to support an amendment which, in fact, means a complete negation, with respect, Sir, of the motion, yet he has absolutely nothing to offer on the legal aspect, except a completely misleading reference to section 11 of the Order in Council. Section 11, Sir, in respect of which His Excellency must exercise his powers in his complete discretion, refers to judgeships and offices of the Crown - Attorney-Generals, Judges, etc. It does not refer to the Chief Minister or Assistant Ministers. The Member for Paya Lebar, himself a member of the Bar, himself having practised at the Bar, himself at one time an officer of the law, if he cares to reread it carefully, will recognise that it is not an instrument for supporting his opposition; will recognise that that is true and may well wish to withdraw a suggestion made to the House which, if believed, could certainly mislead it. I had thought it my duty, in speaking to this House, to make clear the legal position as I saw it. I do not think I had suggested-and may I say with respect, Sir, I think it comes very ill to suggest that I have suggested - that I was the sole interpreter of this or any other constitution. I give you my views. I give you the reasons on which my views are based. I am prepared to respect the views of others, and I repeat: I believe I am right. What do you think? I think, if I may say so, Sir, that the words which it is sought to substitute for the words which it is sought to omit are a gratuitous insult wholly out of place. Now, Sir, on the motion itself, I have, I thought, in the plainest language, pointed out that the third paragraph arises out of the second paragraph, and you cannot divorce the third from the second. If you accept the second which states: "the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, should be adopted", then you must accept the third paragraph, since that is a liberal construction legally permissible. I regret that in a motion, which I had hoped would have the support of all Malayans in this House, and which was not intended to be on a Party basis, there should still proceed the Party outlook, and the Party attitude of certain sections of the opposite Benches. May I say that apart from the inconsistency of accepting the first two paragraphs and rejecting the third, as I understand it, according to the policy of the Progressive Party, inconsistencies are their meat and drink? Nevertheless, Sir, it is the height of absurdity to accept the suggestion that you, Sir, embodying this House, should proceed to meet His Excellency, should in the name of this House indicate to him our view that we desire self-government and independence, our view that there should be a liberal construction, and leave things hanging in the air without reporting back to us on the message that you have delivered and the message that you may receive. I do not know, Sir, whether the hon. Members opposite ever stop to think of what they do. I have been the object of attack for making a constitutional issue of a minor matter. Sir, very fortunately, it has never been, and so long as I stay here or so short as I stay here, it never will be, part of my policy to seek, to placate and please the Progressive Party. They attack me now for making a constitutional issue of a minor matter. Can you not see that had I waited for some major matter of an inflammable character, I would be attacked for being responsible for bringing forth an inflammable issue? So just where do we go, Sir? According to the Progressive Party and the Member for Telok Ayer, this Chief Minister, Sir, can never do right. I accept that position. I would like to state, Sir, I am indebted for the remarks from the opposite side of the House that the rejection of this motion, or those parts of the motion which I have brought forward, would amount to a vote of no confidence in me. I would repeat that I hope no Member in this House would be affected by that consideration. There should be no question today, on this motion, of confidence or no confidence. There should be only the welfare of the people, and a realisation that we are dealing with basic and vital factors that affect the working of the constitution and the welfare of the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is most amazing to me that this amendment should have ever been proposed. It must either have arisen from the fact that the proposer and his supporters have not read the motion as it stands, or having read it, found themselves incapable of understanding it. The second part of the motion, Sir, reads as follows: "And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, should be adopted;". It is asking, Sir, in that part of the motion that the most liberal construction legally permissible should be adopted. Does that not indicate clearly that the Chief Minister had never wanted to be the sole interpreter of the Order in Council? Is it possible, Sir, that that part of the motion, which is in the English language, could be misunderstood? It is not only amazing, but rather amusing to me, Sir.

Question, "That the words after the word 'that' in the first line of the third paragraph of the original motion to the end proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived.

That means, of course, that the whole amendment has been defeated, and the original motion is now before the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, government under law is often a matter of definition. On the definition or interpretation of a word, a principle often lives or dies. The nature of government under law is also a matter of definition. Somehow, it seems that definitions have become unclear in Singapore during the past few weeks. It should be very clear to all concerned in government that Singapore is no longer a colonial territory, but a political entity in transition towards independence. That is the basic definition which must be understood and appreciated. In Singapore, therefore, methods which might be! appropriate in a colony are no longer appropriate. The direction of government in a transition society is very different from the direction of government in a colonial society. In a colony, a firm hand may be necessary for the maintenance of the government. In Singapore, it should be the role of appointed officials to conciliate and guide. Appointed officials should be eager to turn over responsibility as soon as the elected officials show they can manage it. Instead, in Singapore we are witnessing a reassertion of the inflexible attitudes associated with past colonial rule. One belief guided the voters who went to the polls in Singapore's first election a few months ago. One belief animates all - or almost all - the elected representatives of the people who sit in this House. That belief is the conviction that Singapore, with the blessing of the former colonial authority, is moving rapidly towards self-government and independence. But in the past weeks, that cardinal belief has suffered a rude shock. The people are beginning to lose faith in the promises which were the basis of the elections. The people are beginning to wonder whether it is truly the intentions of the former colonial authority to assist our progress towards independence. This loss of faith is the most dangerous thing that could happen in Singapore. If evolution towards independence proves to be an illusion - or a deliberate deception - the people will be forced to listen to the extremists. The extremists advocate a road to independence which can only result in suffering for the people and great losses for all. We still believe that the extreme path can be avoided. We still hold to our faith that evolution towards independence is a reality. But that faith has been shaken. It is now the responsibility of the appointed officials to restore that faith - to give us reason to believe as we have already believed. If they do not do so, the cost, I fear, will be grievous for all of us. I support the Chief Minister's motion and trust that it will have the desired effect of causing a reconsideration of definitions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many people outside this Assembly think that what the Labour Front is fighting for is two or four Assistant Ministers, but I am surprised that in this Assembly there are a few Members who still believe this. I think it should be clear even to the Progressive Party Members that what the Chief Minister is fighting for is not Assistant Ministers but a constitutional point. The Chief Minister has said in this House this morning that he is ready to drop the question of the Assistant Ministers if a satisfactory solution is found to this constitutional problem. On this motion the P.A.P. stands solidly behind this. Those who vote against it must remember, if they are Elected Members, that they may go to the country on this issue. I am not a young firebrand. I have nine grandchildren. I say in all sincerity that times have changed. The people now are not like the people before the war. I cannot say what started it. Maybe the Japanese occupation. But there is now a new spirit in the people of this country, particularly among the younger generation. I have no doubt that the people of this country - by that I mean the Asians who have been born and bred in this country - fully support this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what I have read from the letters exchanged between the Chief Minister and His Excellency the Governor, I am inclined to think that the question of appointment of four Assistant Ministers, which has been the cause of the present crisis, could have been more amicably settled if it was approached in a more informal manner. I see little necessity to hurry in this matter. It is certainly regrettable that this question has now developed into a constitutional problem. Regarding the constitutional matter, it is obvious that the Rendel Constitution has created certain reserved powers in the hands of the Governor. Nevertheless, I am in sympathy with that paragraph of the proposed resolution which reads: "And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, should be adopted;". I support this position, and I feel that the architects of the Rendel Constitution must have felt the same way. I feel that the reserved powers given to the Governor under the Rendel Constitution should be sparingly used. I, therefore, support in principle the spirit of this resolution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party and I are not surprised at the present crisis. We are not surprised because right from the beginning we said that the Rendel Constitution was a sham. The Rendel Constitution is an undemocratic constitution. It is a colonial constitution, and therefore it does not give clear powers to the people and their elected representatives. The real power is in the hands of the Governor and the colonial officials, but the people do not want power for the Governor and the colonial officials. They want freedom and democracy for themselves and their country. Those whom the people have elected are not elected for nothing. The people did not participate in the elections in order to provide stooges for the Governor and the colonial system. They elected their representatives to fight for freedom and democracy and not to listen to the orders of colonialism. The elected representatives of the people must listen to the people and not to the Governor. If the Governor is not prepared to accept and act on the advice of those whom the people elect, why have elections at all? Why have this Assembly? I consider it hypocrisy to ask the people to elect their own representatives, and then to ignore and to insult them. I fought the elections to this Assembly, and my Party fought the elections, because we wanted to voice the demand of the people in this Assembly for complete freedom and democracy. Therefore, we have great pleasure in supporting the Chief Minister's motion for it is a motion, which anyone who believes in democratic principles must support. The hon. Mr Sutherland, who is the "Member for himself", does not agree. This is not surprising, for on his own admission he represents the expatriates - the European business community. The P.A.P. does not include a European business community - [Interruption.]

Order, please.

- when it talks of the people of this country. A colonial constitution is only workable ultimately if the elected representatives of the people are prepared to obey the Governor's orders and carry out policies which are in the interests of colonialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, today the colonial world is in a crisis because colonialism is unworkable in the modem world. Everywhere in the world, including this country, the people hunger for peace, freedom and democracy, but the policy of colonialism throughout the world, in British Guiana, the French policy in Indo-China and North Africa, proves that freedom and democracy cannot exist under colonialism. I hope that the Governor and the colonial officials will learn the lessons of history quickly for their own good and for the good of the people of this country by granting the people and their elected representatives real power. They are acting against history. They are acting like men who are foolish enough to suppose that they can prevent the sun from rising. The propagandists of colonialism are always trying to convince the public that they are sincere in their desire to grant freedom and democracy to the people, but this crisis proves that they are not sincere. If they are sincere, why should the Governor find it so difficult to act according to the advice of the elected Chief Minister? The Chief Minister says that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves. I hope that the colonial officials understand this before it is too late. Soon, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr Lennox-Boyd, will be visiting this country, but if he listens only to the colonial officials and to the propagandists, he will never learn the truth. If he really desires to learn the truth, I would advise him as follows. The truth is not to be discovered in Government House. Neither will he find it in European clubs or in police stations, or even in this Assembly itself. If you want to learn the truth, go among the people, mix with them, learn their true feelings, their deepest thoughts, and then you will find that everywhere in this country the people cry out from their hearts "Merdeka!"

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a matter of surprise to me that in Singapore of 1955 this Assembly should have to consider a motion of this nature, The surprise is because it is the oft-repeated promise of the British Government that colonialism is not only dead but damned, and the job facing us is to guide this country to the peaceful waters of independence. The Chief Minister has stated the case for my Party and with him I take the stand that only with a steady march to freedom can this country be kept safe within the camp of democracy. It is indeed unfortunate that these statements of simple truth should have to be made when the country is in the throes of a constitutional crisis. It is the fashion these days to talk, often and loosely, about the constitution under which the April elections were fought. I warn this House that we are here as representatives of the various Parties which fought the election. We are here, for my part for instance, to push through the platform of the Labour Front. Whether you gentlemen on the opposite side propose to assist or hinder us is a different matter. We are here, as I said, to push through our Party's platform. This House should be aware of its status and not to arrogate to itself the power that normally goes with a Constituent Assembly. I am glad to say that the motion before the House is in the form as it is at present. Should it have sought in any way to amend the constitution, then it would have been my duty to warn this House that this is something which is not within our power to do. We accepted the Rendel Constitution. We fought the election under the Rendel Constitution, and I am one with the Chief Minister when he says that the Rendel Constitution is workable, provided that all the Parties concerned adjust their minds to the task of taking this country on the road to self-government. This is the Labour Front policy, and we hope to achieve our independence, as the Chief Minister said in his first speech in this Assembly, within the space of four years. We have worked to the constitution for just four months, and I plead today to all those interested in the welfare of Singapore not to throw on the scrap-heap something which is a milestone in the path of our march to self-government. We are today in the relentless grip of a constitutional crisis. We are today faced with the issue of who is to govern, the Party in power or the Governor. May I suggest that with a liberal interpretation of the Rendel Constitution, could we say: Is it possible for the Party in power to rule, assisted by the Governor? I may be called an optimist, but I have grounds for my optimism. We are today faced with the simple issue that the Chief Minister made a recommendation for the appointment of four Assistant Ministers. The Governor thought that only two were necessary. This, we say, is interference, but I beg to say that if this is interference, there have also been cases where the previous Governor has shown a remarkable degree of co-operation. I refer, Sir, to the inaugural speech delivered in this Chamber by Sir John Nicoll, when he said that multi-lingualism would be introduced in the vehicles of local and central government. Was this not co-operation? If there is one instance of difference between the Party in power and the Governor, are there not several instances where the Governor had taken his stand with this same Party? What I say is this. If the Rendel Constitution was workable four months ago when we assumed office, why should we not, with a little patience and understanding, make use of its positive aspects to implement the platform on which the electorate sent us here? This issue of the Assistant Ministers has been a sore point with the public, and I am not so sure that we are wise to persist with it. In fact, I welcome that sentence in the letters published yesterday where the Chief Minister says that he is prepared to reconsider his advice on this issue. We came here to serve the people and, in that service, we are fortunate to find in the Chief Minister one whose ability, integrity and sincerity have won the admiration of all of us. The Party thought, at one time, that these Assistant Ministerships were necessary to strengthen the Party's chances of implementing its policies. I can say for sure that the Labour Front Coalition have changed their minds now. I know it will be said that what is at stake today is not the appointment of a number of men for the Assistant Ministerships, but the vital principle of who is to govern. It is a matter of regret to me that we should have tripped up on this principle over the issue of Assistant Ministers. Interference in any manner, I say, is wrong, but it is indeed a pity that this issue should have so clouded our view, and we have forgotten today how it all started. Let me state flatly that the electorate is against the whole idea of Assistant Ministership, and we in the Party like good democrats bow to this decision and request the Chief Minister not to pursue this subject any further. The electorate, too, is of the opinion that in no instances where our Party has sought to implement its election promises has the Governor proved a stumbling block. In fact, on the issue of multi-lingualism, the Governor, Sir John Nicoll, met us half-way. Again, in the matter of the appointment of the Commission to probe the workings of the Public Service, we had our way. Again, on the question of land freeze, we had our way. In the Labour Code and, in fact, in every major issue which we have taken up during the four months we have been in power, we find that the Governor has met us half-way. That proves that the Rendel Constitution is workable, and if it was workable on all these major issues, then it will be workable again and again during the next four years we are in office, and when on the strength of some fine achievements, we will go to the electorate again. In view of all this, can we not pursue more diligently with the suggestion made earlier by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that a modus vivendi be sought to make this constitution now in our hands workable, and to get the Parties to work together to take this island along the road to self-government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we, the Naval Base Labour Union and the people of Sembawang, fully support the principal motion moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister this morning. Our stand is against colonialism, and to this end we shall relax neither our efforts nor our strength. We are opposed to colonialism, because we recognise it as a running sore in our body politic. There can be no progress and security in our country as long as the reins of power are held, not by the true elected representatives of the people, but by the colonial government. The unworkability of the constitution under which the Labour Front Coalition Government has had to labour is too obvious to require repetition. We have constantly pointed out the deficiency of the constitution, and we now see no reason to revise our convictions. The constitution is not adapted to the interests of the people ready for independence. On this issue, our stand is logical and clear. We shall strive to our utmost extent to support any political Party fighting for the independence of our country. The discretionary powers of the Governor in Council are an unnecessary obstacle to the process of democracy. These powers militate against the interests of the people. If we are to attain our independence, then these powers can have no place in the Legislature of this country. The people of Singapore realise only too well the political implications colouring this constitutional crisis. Any reassertions of power by the colonial government will earn the deserved hatred and distrust of the people of Singapore. In supporting the Labour Front Coalition Government in such a crisis, we do rightly urge the colonial government to justify their promise of granting independence to the people of Singapore. On this issue, the Governor should determine to accept the principle of government existing primarily for the people; and where this principle is not observed in a colonial country, then democracy becomes a hollow pretence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. I wish to make it clear that if this House had been asked to vote on the creation of posts for the four Assistant Ministers, my Party would have voted "No", unless a good and valid justification could be given. Even if those posts had been created and this House had been asked to approve the nominations of the Chief Minister to those positions, we would have also strongly opposed. Until we heard the most sensational Party speeches delivered by our Chief Minister, my sympathies go with him, but I can assure the Chief Minister that his position in history is secure. He will always be remembered as Singapore's first Malayan to occupy the chief executive chair as Singapore moves towards true self-government and independence, but history's judgment on Mr Marshall, the Member for Cairnhill, however, is not nearly so certain. Certain of his actions in his entire chain of actions led us to fear that the statement of the future historian about the Chief Minister may merely note that Mr Marshall is only the first Chief Minister, and will say no more. A terrible burden rests on the pioneer, we admit, particularly when he treads the political road to independence. Precisely because Mr Marshall is Singapore's first Chief Minister, his administration should be more immaculate than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately, we cannot say that it is, so far. Now, we meet here today to consider a constitutional crisis, and we note this constitutional crisis with grief. Can we deny that this crisis came about because of the political self-seeking of the present Government? The people of Singapore who are acquainted with their public figures look with doubt, and perhaps disfavour, on certain of the nominations offered by the Chief Minister for the posts of Assistant Ministers -

Order. Please do not touch on the merits or demerits of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. That is not before the House.

Despite our distaste for the manner in which the dispute arose, my Party cannot do otherwise than to support the Chief Minister's motion because the issue is no longer a minor issue. It is no more a political issue. The issue has become a moral issue touching the very heart of Singapore's political being. We Singaporeans believed, and have been led to believe, that we were on the high road to the goal of self-government and independence, but now it is feared that the high road is merely a back alley. A government which is not permitted to govern its own composition is hardly a government. Therefore, we base on the principle, which nobody can and dare deny, that Singapore must be governed and ruled by the people of Singapore. Therefore, Sir, I have the honour to support the motion.

I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Hon. the Chief Minister -

Moment of interruption. It is four o'clock now. Debate to be resumed, what day, Mr Chief Minister?

Ten o'clock tomorrow morning, Sir.

I am afraid that cannot be done. If the Chief Minister will now move that the sitting do adjourn, automatically the adjournment will be until Monday morning, the next sitting day.

With respect, Sir, may I point out that under the provisions of Standing Order 7 (2), I thought we could continue to-morrow? Would you permit me, Sir, to move the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to enable a sitting to be held tomorrow morning?

That cannot be done. Will you move the adjournment, please?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the adjournment till Monday morning at 10 a.m.

Question put, and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at 4.02 p.m. to the 25th of July, 1955.