Hansard, 1955-08-02

Hon. Members, I have a message from His Excellency the Governor. It takes the form of a letter addressed to me, and is dated the 2nd of August, 1955. Here is the message: "On the 25th July you delivered to me a certified copy of the Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly on that date and, in a reply which I handed to you on the same afternoon, I explained that I would require time to study the implications of the Resolution before I could put you in a position to convey a reply to the Assembly. I communicated the terms of the Resolution to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, during his recent visit to Singapore, he took the opportunity to discuss both with the Chief Minister and with myself, the various issues raised. As discussions are to be continued when the Secretary of State returns to Singapore on the 15th August, I am not yet in a position to send a full reply. I would, however, be grateful if you would convey the following observations to the Legislative Assembly. On the first point raised in the Resolution, I am very glad to be able to inform Honourable Members that the Secretary of State has asked me to assure them of the continuing sympathetic interest which Her Majesty's Government takes in Singapore's problems and of the sincerity of their policy to assist Singapore to achieve self-government within the British Commonwealth. On the second point raised, I gladly repeat my former affirmation of my sympathetic desire to give the Government all possible help in the execution of its policies. In so doing I do not propose to exercise my discretionary powers in a didactic or harsh manner, or in any way calculated to frustrate the Government in discharging the responsibilities which it has accepted. On the third and fourth points in the Resolution, valuable and friendly talks have taken place between the Secretary of State, the Chief Minister, and myself, and examination of these important points has been carried as far as it could be at present. As I have already indicated, it is proposed to resume these talks on the return of the Secretary of State to Singapore on the 15th of August and I hope to be able to send a substantive reply to the Assembly on the 18th August."

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it possible to have copies of this message for Members?

Yes, that will be done.

I was wondering, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether in these circumstances you would exercise your discretion in suspending the sitting for half an hour to allow hon. Members an opportunity to consider the message, and also to consider what action they might wish to take after deliberation with their colleagues.

Mr Chief Minister, I am, of course, faced with the same difficulty as I was faced with last time. This actually is not a complete reply to the Resolution. Under your Resolution, you will remember that the Assembly can immediately take such action on motions without notice as the circumstances may require, that is, provided we have a complete reply to the Resolution. But, of course, if hon. Members wish to suspend the sitting for half an hour to discuss the matter, I have no objection at all. Have I the assent of all hon. Members present that the sitting should be suspended for half an hour? Hon. Members indicated assent.

The sitting is then suspended for half an hour. Sitting accordingly suspended at 10.07 a.m. until 10.37 a.m. Sitting resumed at 10.37 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to be the feeling of a large number of hon. Members that this message should be discussed freely, and, in the circumstances, subject to your guidance, Mr Speaker, I move that this House do resolve itself into Committee to consider the message so that Members will be free to speak more than once if they be so inclined.

Mr Chief Minister, my difficulty is that under Standing Orders there is no provision for this step to be taken, but I am allowing that motion under the fifth paragraph of your Resolution, which reads: "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." Can I have your motion again, Mr Chief Minister?

I am indebted to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. My motion is, That this House do resolve itself into Committee to consider the message received from His Excellency the Governor this morning.

I rise to second.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I feel I should report to hon. Members, in so far as I can, and very briefly, the conversations that took place on the Resolution of this House which was presented to His Excellency the Governor. Several conversations took place yesterday, and His Excellency, although naturally maintaining what I am convinced is his sincere view of the correctness of his interpretation, went out of his way to be of every assistance he could to me in putting the position, not only of the interpretation but the views of this House, and I would be churlish, Sir, if I did not recognise the genuineness of his efforts for an honourable solution and his desire to meet the legitimate aspirations indicated by this House. The Secretary of State, who had just arrived after a tiring journey, was most friendly, but there are implications, in his view, of a character, which require further clarification, consultation and consideration. In the circumstances, Sir, I did not feel it proper to press - not that I might have been successful had I pressed - when he suggested that he would prefer to give a final decision after further consideration and consultation on his return. He will be returning to Singapore on the 15th of August, and the suggested date is the l8th - a matter of 16 days hence. The issues involved are of a vital character, and I think they do merit the full consideration that the Secretary of State seeks to give them. The delay is not a long one, nor is it inappropriate. I feel, for myself, that I am indebted to His Excellency for the assurances indicated in his message, and that for the time being perhaps we should rest there and proceed with the normal business of the country. I am aware that many Members on both sides of the House take strong opposite views, but, as I have always indicated, I am prepared to be guided by the feelings of the House on the matter. I am ready to proceed with the business of the day, Sir, if the House should be inclined to accede to my suggestion that that should be so. But if - and I think there is considerable validity in that view - they feel that the issues may to some extent be clouded, and that they must be now maintained in their pristine vigour, and perhaps pursued outside this Chamber, I cannot see that any damage would ensue by a postponement for 16 days of the immediate business. I would say this: that at its worst, it is my intention that there should be a further sitting of this House in order to enable the legislation before the House to be passed and to be effective. The social legislation we have before us is of a vital character, and I have no intention, in so far as it lies in my power, to take action, which would prejudice its becoming law. I am entirely subject to the guidance of the House in the suggestion I have made.

Mr Chairman, it is my anomalous position today to be more fierce than the Hon. the Chief Minister. He is a terribly sincere man, and I accept the explanation he has given why he wishes the House to carry on with the normal business of the day. I feel that in this Assembly we are not just expressing our personal view of what is right or wrong. We are the representatives through whom the people can put their somewhat inarticulate but, nevertheless, very real feelings on this question of self-government, and the very real feelings that have been aroused - as I said accidentally - on this question of the interpretation of a section of the Order in Council. Mr Chairman, there is nothing in this reply, which we have received this morning from His Excellency the Governor, which has materially altered the position from what it was on the 26th of July, except that on that day we had a much fiercer Chief Minister. Sir, I am glad that the Chief Minister has said that he would wish to be guided by the feelings of this House. We did not have the advantage of the personal consultations and discussions with Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies. We are therefore unable to fathom the depths of Her Majesty's Secretary of State's sincerity. We, like the other people in Singapore and Malaya, must judge him by his actions, by his public conduct, his public declarations, and not his private assurances. There is nothing in this message, which has taken us further than where we were when we last adjourned on a matter of grave public importance. We felt then that an issue had arisen, which must first be resolved before we could go on with the day-to-day business of a legislative chamber. There is nothing in this message, which can properly influence us away from that stand. If we go on with the normal business of the day, my view, and the view of my Party, is that we have publicly indicated to the people of Singapore that we, as their representatives, are sufficiently satisfied with this message, to withdraw from the very definite stand which we took at the last sitting. In my view, if all Members are agreed that they are satisfied with this reply, regardless of what happens on the 18th of August, then we can go on. If we are not - that, in fact, the future course of events will be determined by what His Excellency has been pleased enough to call a substantive reply on the 18th of August, and it is a substantive reply that will decide the course of events - then the view of my Party is that we should leave things as they are. We should give Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies sufficient time to consider the matter, and give His Excellency the Governor sufficient time to convince the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the very real feelings of the people of Singapore in this matter. Not necessarily the feelings expressed in the English language Press which has been somewhat unkind to the Chief Minister lately, but the feelings of those who are not sufficiently educated to write letters to the "Man in the Street" or "We the People" columns in commercial newspapers whose interests must necessarily be reflected in the policy of their paper. We hope, by the time Mr Lennox-Boyd and Lady Patricia Boyd return from their sojourn in Borneo and other parts of the British Empire in Southeast Asia, we should be able to give sufficient articulation to the inchoate desire of a large mass of the people to be done away with what is now considered a term of abuse - the colonial system. It is my view, therefore, Mr Chairman, that we should leave things as they are. We make no step forward; we make no step backward; and on the 18th of this month we decide whither we shall go.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I agree with the Chief Minister to proceed with the business of the House. I certainly feel that all of us sitting in this Assembly here have a duty to perform. There is before us some urgent legislation that should be carried out, and we will be failing in our duty if we do not make legislation to replace what is old and obsolete. We have heard from the Chief Minister that even if there should be a drastic decision to be taken, we still would have to have one more sitting here to push through the legislation we want. I therefore feel that there would be no loss whilst we carry on with the business of the House today, and perhaps tomorrow if it should not be finished, and then await a reply from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It does not mean that we are compromising in any way, because we will take the answer and consider it on its own merits.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I entirely agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that we should postpone any business before us today to the next sitting. The issue involved is a very vital one, where the honour of the people of the Colony, the honour of the Ministry, and the honour of the Members of this House are at stake. There is nothing in this message, which could be discussed now, and we are told that a definite reply will be given later. Therefore, by postponing today's business for a fortnight, we have nothing to lose, I would suggest that we adjourn to the 18th of August.

Mr Chairman. Sir, when I read through the reply from His Excellency the Governor to the Resolution we sent to him, I tried my best to understand whether it has gone any way towards solving the problem that faced us at our last sitting. As things stand at present, I should like to support the proposal put forward by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that we should adjourn the sitting to the 18th of August when we shall receive a reply that we asked for at the last sitting of the Assembly.

Mr Chairman, Sir, when I heard you delivering His Excellency's message to this House, I was under the impression that it contained some matters of vital interest, which would be considered very favourably by the Assembly. However, on going through the message, I find that there are other matters involved which should be considered by the Assembly. One of them is the wording of the Resolution which this Assembly approved a few days ago. Self-government and independence, as we all know, are vital principles, and we, the elected Members, who have pledged ourselves to carry out our duties and responsibilities to serve the people cannot be satisfied with a reply of this nature. To me, Sir, this would appear to be couched in an absolutely civil service language, which cannot be accepted as a reply to our demand for self-government. I do hope, Sir, in the light of my statement, that the House will agree to adjourn this sitting to a later date, when we will have the opportunity of examining His Excellency's further reply.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I feel myself, like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, to be in an anomalous position. I am in this House as a Nominated Member, and I cannot therefore stand up and claim that I have behind me the voice of the people. I am here by the nomination of the Governor to the appointment of a Ministry. I am also in an anomalous position because I am not only British by nationality, but also British by birth - in fact, more British than many people, because the real British are the Welsh! It is worth noting, of course, that the British in Wales were the first subject race to be conquered by the English! They have not yet achieved self-government either! However, my position as a Nominated Member and as a Britisher by race may perhaps make my voice worth listening to since I can reasonably claim to speak with some impartiality. I would like to refer, in a spirit of impartiality, to some words in this message at the end of the fourth paragraph: "...the sincerity of their (Her Majesty's Government's) policy to assist Singapore to achieve self-government within the British Commonwealth". "To achieve self-government within the British Commonwealth". Now, when I spoke earlier on this same matter at our last sitting when we discussed this crisis, I indicated that I thought that this territory would necessarily have to associate itself with one of the great world groupings, and that I personally and emphatically preferred to associate Singapore with the Commonwealth of Nations. However, I feel that if we are to do that, we must do it of our own free wish, by our own choice, and not as the fruit of a policy decided for us elsewhere. I have throughout my life felt that freedom of will, freedom of choice, and freedom of action are basic to human dignity, and if we take any political decisions, we must take them for ourselves - right or wrong. Freedom has no meaning unless you can choose fully and freely for yourselves, and it means freedom to make a mistake as much as to do what is right. There must be nothing lacking in our determination to stand by that principle of freedom and to demonstrate it in every way. I do not feel personally that it is of very great significance whether we push through the legislation today, or whether we delay it for 16 days. I was inclined at first to feel that we might as well go on with our legislation today. but on further thought I see that if we do that, it may be taken as a sign that we are not really going to go ahead with our firm demand for the principle of freedom. I therefore support the Member for Tanjong Pagar in his urging that we should suspend public business until we have received a fuller reply. I would like to add this, in answer to arguments that have been. raised in the Press and elsewhere. People have said that we are going too fast. We are hurrying -

Mr Thomas, can we keep to this message, please?

Arising from the message, I will continue on this point of the policy that we should achieve self-government within the British Commonwealth. I refer again to the principle of freedom and say that if we appear to be hastening faster than the policy here indicated, the need for speed on our part is not because we have delayed in the past, but it is because the predecessors of the Secretary of State have delayed in the past: that no proper movement was given to this country towards freedom and democracy until the post-war years, and that the policy of the past was to hope that nobody would ask, and then nothing would have to be given. If there is in this country a danger of Communist subversion, of violence and terrorism, of unrest and labour difficulties, they can all be traced back, in my opinion, to the delay in moving this country forward towards freedom. It is impossible for me to accept the view that further delay will do anything except increase the danger and promote in every way further difficulties and damage to the welfare of this country. With those thoughts in my mind, I do support the Member for Tanjong Pagar that in this small matter of delaying public business for a short period, we are giving a clear demonstration of our feelings, and we should therefore delay public business.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the reply we received this morning from His Excellency the Governor is more or less the same as the one we received on the 26th of July, 1955. I am in full support of all the points raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy), and the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas). In view of the fact that we have not received any substantive reply, I suggest that we suspend this sitting until we receive one.

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I just clarify one point for the Chief Minister? If it should be necessary on the 18th of this month to take any step, which, in his view, would mean the dissolution of his Government, he should feel confident of this: that this House will be prepared to sit with him right through all the stages of the social legislation which he has tabled, and when it has been pushed through in a proper and orderly manner, then we can go and face the country. That is an assurance which I thought was so obvious that I had not given it before But if he feels in the least bit unhappy at the prospect of leaving his legislation, which is almost finished, unfinished, then I think he should remember that no one would quarrel with going on with this Assembly until all the legislation has been pushed through. I would like to say - and I realise I am saying this publicly - that I share his confidence that a reasonable solution will be worked out. But I cannot share his confidence to such an extent as to abandon my stand and to go on with the business of the day. To do so would, I think, suggest that we had acted rashly and foolishly on the 26th of July. For myself I do not think we did. We weighed the odds before we decided to do what we did. I believe we were right then, that there was no other step for us to take than to stand firm until we had resolved this issue on which the Chief Minister had clashed with His Excellency the Governor. If we had that issue resolved today, then we would be justified in altering our stand. But there has been no alteration whatsoever in the overall position. So if there is any other reason which deters the Chief Minister from adopting the view that I have expressed, perhaps he would be good enough to enlighten us.

Mr Chairman, I am indeed indebted to my learned Friend across the floor for the generous assurance received. I would add, in fairness to him and his friends on the opposite Benches, that I did not fear their lack of co-operation should that unhappy eventuality arise, and that, in fact, I anticipated that should we have to dissolve this House I would have hon. Members opposite entirely with me in finishing the social legislation that is now ready for completion. I feel, Sir, that perhaps we have not given fair and sufficient consideration to His Excellency's message. It is not true that it takes us no forrader. It is a courteous interim message that has a substantive personal assurance, and although it does not take us forward as regards the main issue, I felt, Sir, that there were reasons why we should proceed with the business today. The main reason is that the Land Titles Bill, for example, is one of a complex character which I should have liked to see referred to a Select Committee in order to enable the Bar Committee, which is particularly affected, and other interests to make proper representations, before it is taken for its Third, and final, Reading. There is also the question of the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which I hope this House would pass. I would like, however, before I cease being Chief Minister, to see it take effect as law. Hon. Members opposite will remember that all the process of legislation is not in our hands, and that His Excellency the Governor has that final power of signing or not signing.

That will be the death warrant of the Rendel Constitution!

It is important for this House, before it dissolves, I feel, that that aspect of legislation which has held up the development of the country for some time should be known to have not only been passed, but to have become law in this territory. I would not like to say, and I would be very unfair in saying, that my successors would not face that obligation honestly, but we have evidence in the past of certain politicians shirking the issue; and it is a Bill that I would like to see become law. Those are the reasons why, Sir, I felt we might go on with the business today, and I felt that we should also acknowledge the very considerable assistance we have received from His Excellency recently, and that the conflict is not one of personalities. I would add, to my learned Friend opposite and to hon. Members that it would be unwise to indulge in over-confidence. There are interests - let us face it frankly - commercial interests which see in the present situation an opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to dismiss this House, which seems to have been difficult and to have worried commercial interests in this territory, and to do it in a dignified fashion, putting the blame on us, and thereafter to suspend the constitution. There are interests, both here and in the Lobbies of Westminster - and I think hon. Members are conscious of the strength and power of the rubber and tin Lobbies in Westminster - who are working against a sympathetic understanding of the aspirations of the people of this territory. So let us not be over-confident about getting a solution. I am not unhopeful, as being one of those primarily concerned in the conversations, but I would not go further than that. I feel that we should go on, Sir, and try to get as much legislation through as we can, but I repeat: if the House feels that we would be losing in dignity or losing in strength in the position we hold, I am quite willing to go with the House. There is no question of the Whip being used on my side, and I am grateful for the suggestion, which will be adopted in the event of our having to take a drastic decision, that the House will sit continuously to see all legislation through before dissolution.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I strongly support the Chief Minister's stand that we should carry on with the business of the day, particularly with a view to committing to Select Committees, some of the very long and difficult Bills which we have before us like the Land Titles Bill. I was going to suggest also that the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and the Labour Bill, which has been committed to a Select Committee, I observe, is now, on a motion, to be referred back to this House. If we can refer at least some of these Bills to Select Committees, we shall not be wasting time. We still will have some work done. Sir, on those lines I suggest that we should go on with the day's business.

Mr Chairman, Sir, since no elected Minister other than the Chief Minister has spoken, I feel it my duty to speak on my behalf and on the behalf of the people I represent. I strongly support the suggestion put forward by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. It is rather odd for me, sitting on this side of the House, to support a Member on the opposite Bench, but I feel it my duty to support him that this sitting be suspended until we get a substantive reply, or a reply that is satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has just said that business might be carried on, or at least that we transact business on these two Bills - the Land Titles Bill and the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I think the Government or the Chief Minister can always get an opinion on the Land Titles Bill from the Bar Committee. We have got 16 days in which to obtain an opinion from them. As far as the other legislation is concerned, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said, we can have a special sitting to transact all the business necessary and I do not see any point in continuing the business before us today.

Hon. Members, perhaps we can put this debate on a proper basis if somebody moves a motion that this meeting should not proceed to the consideration of further business today. When that motion is before the House, a vote can be taken.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I formally move, That it is the opinion of this Committee that this Assembly should not proceed to the consideration of further business today. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, on the 25th of July, when the Resolution was unanimously adopted - no, there was one dissenting voice - it was conveyed to His Excellency the Governor with a request that we get his reply. That Resolution, Sir, was an expression of the will of the people, and unless the will of the people is satisfied, I feel that I, as a representative of the people, cannot carry on. Sir, as regards the Labour Bill, I would like to assure the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) that as my motion would not be discussed today, the Select Committee on this Bill would go on.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am not only disappointed with this reply that we have received from His Excellency today, but I feel that it is neither here nor there. It reminds me of the manifesto of a certain political Party which recently lost badly in the elections in the Federation of Malaya. The Hon. the Chief Minister has said that there is some legislation which he thinks should come before the House today. I honestly feel, Sir, that as an elected representative of the people, what is of more interest to this House is not the passing of this legislation, which can wait for another 16 days, but a definite reply from the Secretary of State through His Excellency the Governor. Every man and woman throughout the length and breadth of this island is now waiting for a reply.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that this Assembly should not proceed to the consideration of further business today.

May it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I formally move. That the decision reached in Committee be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Before somebody moves the adjournment, I have a communication to make. On The 25th of July in this Assembly, I was asked by the Hon. the Chief Minister to consider whether a report, which appeared in The Singapore Free Press of Friday, 22nd July, was a breach of the liberties and privileges of this House. The report was headlined "Royal message attacked" and "MARSHALL: I FELL FOR IT", and reads as follows: 'The Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, in the special Legislative Assembly meeting this morning said that his faith in the workability of the Rendel Constitution was strengthened by the messages of the Queen and the previous Governor, Sir John Nicoll. 'Referring to the sentiments of the Queen about the constitutional progress of Singapore, Mr Marshall said: "It was full of promise. I fell for it - hook, line and sinker. "I believed every word of it." 'Then after a reference to Sir John Nicoll's message, he added: "Now the claws of the beast show through the velvet glove."' Hon. Members will remember that a Bill the short title of which is "The Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955" went through all its stages in this Assembly and is now awaiting the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure in accordance with section 62 of the Singapore Colony Order-in-Council, 1955. Certain powers and privileges of this Assembly are defined in that Bill, and clause 24 (1) (c) makes it an offence for any person to publish "any writing containing a gross, wilful or scandalous misrepresentation of the speech of any member in the proceedings of the Assembly". As I see it, it was perhaps unfortunate that the writer of the article should have seized upon a reference to the Royal Message and made headlines of it without regard to the context of the whole speech. The Chief Minister appears to have assumed, as he was indeed entitled to assume, that the sentiments of Her Majesty the Queen were, in fact, the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government. To quote the words of Sir Thomas Erskine May: "The Queen cannot be supposed to have a private opinion apart from that of Her responsible advisers." The Chief Minister's "attack" (to adopt the word used in the report), as was apparent from his whole speech, seems to me, in fact, to have been an "attack" on Her Majesty's Government and the interpretation put on the Rendel Constitution by Her Majesty's Representative in Singapore. This regrettably does not end the matter. The writer, in the first paragraph of his article, has put words in the mouth of the Chief Minister, which I cannot find in the Official Report of the Chief Minister's speech made in this Chamber. In addition, the words in the final paragraph of the article were so taken out of the context of the speech that a reader might well consider that they referred to what is described in the article as "the sentiments of the Queen about the constitutional progress of Singapore". With these additions, the impression must have been created in the minds of some readers, as pointed out by the Chief Minister, that the Chief Minister was guilty of casting some reflection on Her Majesty. This particularly is extremely unfortunate. I was and am entirely satisfied that no disrespect was shown or intended, and the Chief Minister has himself stated that he personally resents very strongly the suggestion that he should be capable of discourtesy to Her Majesty. The inclusion of the words in the final paragraph of the article out of the context of the Chief Minister's speech resulted in misrepresentation, which is to be deplored. But whether such misrepresentation was "gross, wilful or scandalous" is something, which, on the face of the article, is not easily apparent, and if the Powers and Privileges Bill had been law, the appropriate action would have been for me to refer the matter to a Committee of Privileges for further inquiry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just make a short statement on what you have just read out to the House?

Certainly, Mr Chief Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed obliged and very grateful to be vindicated from any charge of discourtesy to Her Majesty, and I feel certain that this House is happy that a charge of that character levelled against a Member should have been so clearly proved to be inaccurate. Mr Speaker, Sir, representations have been made to me on behalf of the reporter concerned, suggesting that what appears in a newspaper is not always the fault of the reporter, because the manner in which his "copy" is treated is entirely out of his hands, and he is no more responsible for what appears in it than the photographer is responsible who sends in a dozen photographs of me with my hand open in salute and finds that just the one where I had it clenched unconsciously as I stood up is picked for front-page treatment! I would like to say, Mr Speaker, that I have the highest regard for a very hard-working profession, and journalists work in usually very difficult circumstances, and in the light of the representations made, I am satisfied that, as regards this particular reporter, there was no malice intended; nor, as far as I can gather, was there any effort on his part to distort. I should also like to say that there was no personal reflection on the reporter intended by me in my complaint.

Mr Chief Minister, will you first report the decision of the Committee?

May it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my duty to report back the decision of the Committee. This decision is, That it is the opinion of the Committee that the Assembly should not proceed to the consideration of further business today.

Will you then, Mr Chief Minister, move a motion to give effect to that decision?

That is the most anomalous position of all, Mr Speaker! But since it is my duty, I do formally move, That this Assembly do now adjourn to the 18th of August, 1955, at 10 a.m.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn to the 18th of August, 1955, at 10 a.m. Adjourned accordingly at 11.31 a.m. to the 18th of August, 1955.