Hansard, 1955-09-21

Mr Charles Harris Butterfield, Q.C., Attorney-General, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor in connection with Bills which have been passed by the Assembly. It is dated 31st August, 1955, and is addressed to me. This is the message: "Sir, I have the honour to inform you that in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, I have this day assented to the Bills intituled: -

In connection with the message of greetings to the Federal Legislative Council moved in this Assembly on the 24th of August, 1955, I duly conveyed to Mr Speaker of the Federal Legislative Council the Resolution of the Assembly. I have received a reply from Mr Speaker of the Federal Legislative Council. It is dated 6th September, 1955, and is addressed to me. This is the reply: "Dear Mr Speaker, With reference to your letter dated the 27th August, 1955, I have the honour to inform you that I conveyed the contents of the letter and the terms of the Resolution to the Federal Legislative Council at its Inaugural Meeting held on the 31st August. The message was received with warm applause, and I have great pleasure in conveying to you the sincere thanks and appreciation of the Council for the generous message, which is symbolic of the close ties linking our two territories. Yours sincerely, RAJA SIR UDA."

In connection with the message of appreciation and gratitude to Mr Malcolm MacDonald moved in this Assembly on the 24th of August, 1955, I duly conveyed to His Excellency the Resolution of this Assembly. I have received a reply. It is dated 30th August, 1955, and is addressed to me. This is the reply: "Dear Mr Speaker, Thank you for your letter of August 26 forwarding to me a printed and authenticated copy of the Resolution recently passed by the Singapore Legislative Assembly, on a motion moved by the Chief Minister. It is a very high honour to receive this friendly expression from the Legislative Assembly. Though I do not deserve it, I am deeply touched by the Assembly's consideration and am very grateful for their generous gesture. I am also thankful for the expression of the Assembly's good wishes for my work in India, Malaya's great neighbour. I shall strive my best there, and amongst other things shall be ready to help in any way that I can to maintain the cordial understanding between India and Singapore which now exists. Please express to the Assembly my deep gratitude, and my good wishes to all its members for their historic work for the people of Singapore. With thanks also for your personal good wishes, which I heartily reciprocate, Yours sincerely, MALCOLM MACDONALD."

I have to inform the Assembly that, in terms of Section 47 (3) (i) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, I granted permission to be absent from meetings of the Assembly to the following Members: Mr Ong Piah Teng - for one month from 17th August. Mr G. A. P. Sutherland - for two months from 26th August. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim - for three weeks from 28th August.

asked the Chief Secretary (a) what is the present strength of the Civil Defence Corps under the following classifications: -

Answer to part (a), Sir. The present strength of the Civil Defence Corps under the classifications mentioned is as follows: Reserves - 736. These are volunteers who have completed two years' service on the active list. Volunteers in training - 135 on the active list carrying out training service, and 736 on the Reserve list carrying out reserve training. National Service Men - 1,145. I am not aware of dissatisfaction prevailing among the men or the women of the Corps, or potential recruits, but if the hon. Member will give me specific instances of the dissatisfaction said to be prevalent, I will see that these are investigated forthwith. Every effort is being made to establish a high esprit de corps in the present Civil Defence Services. I do not subscribe to the implication that the present Corps is inferior to the pre-war Corps in this respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Chief Secretary please tell this Assembly why is the strength of the Volunteers in active training so small?

I should like notice of that question, Sir. The strength of the Volunteers naturally depends from time to time on the number who join, and I think it may be that the large intake of National Service men may have had some effect on the numbers of Volunteers joining.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to a report I have just received, it says that a Volunteer is required to carry out a maximum of 60 hours' training per annum for a period of two years. This means that a Volunteer has only a training -

Order, please, Mr Lee Choon Eng. Please ask a supplementary question and do not make a statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asking a question.

Carry on, Mr Lee Choon Eng.

This means that a Volunteer has got only five hours' training a month. Is it the opinion of the Chief Secretary that five hours' training a month is sufficient to qualify a Volunteer?

That is not within the terms of the original question, Mr Lee Choon Eng.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust has issued instructions that no English-speaking person in the future will be employed in the Labour Force of the Singapore Improvement Trust; whether he will state the reasons for this apparent discrimination; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my information is that the Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust has issued no such instructions.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the term "squatter" is objectionable to those who can not accurately be so described; and whether he will arrange that the term "Squatters" should not be associated with the Working Committee which he has recently appointed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the first part of the question is "Yes"; and the answer to the second part of the question is also "Yes".

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister inform this House what is this Working Committee and when was it appointed?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Committee was appointed about a fortnight ago on my instructions, and the object of the formation of this Committee is to go thoroughly into the question of those people who live in semi-permanent houses in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what action he has taken in connection with the representations made in writing to him concerning the manner in which the City Council is handling its contracts and with particular reference to a matter the details of which had already been communicated to him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the making of contracts is within the powers of the City Council, and I have no authority at present within the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance to interfere with the awarding of contracts by the City Council.

Could the Minister assure this House that he would try and amend this Ordinance or make recommendations to effect necessary amendment to meet such cases?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the hon. Member who has just spoken would like to make any amendment to the Municipal Ordinance, he can do so; but at the present moment, as you are aware, the question of local government, which includes the City Council, the Rural Board and the Singapore Improvement Trust is being deliberated upon by the Committee on Local Government.

Is the Minister aware that the Member who questioned this is a Member of the City Council, and has he directed the Member to find redress in the City Council?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that the questioner is a Member of the City Council, and with regard to my directions, I think, as Members will be aware, the question of redress was discussed by the City Council at its full meeting about a week ago.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, with your indulgence, to make a statement on the goodwill mission to Indonesia.

By all means, Mr Chief Minister.

Hon. Members of the House are aware that from the outset of our existence, it has been our desire to send a goodwill mission to Indonesia to clear away what one newspaper called "the cobwebs of suspicion and antagonism" that have existed and accumulated in the past few years between us. We naturally had our trade relations in mind, for in seeking our basic aim to improve the standard of living of the people of this territory, we must be ever watchful to improve the general prosperity of the island. The inspiration for the goodwill mission, however, Sir, went well beyond the question of trade. If the principal objective of the people of this territory - independence - is to have any real meaning, we must now seek to lay the foundations of friendly relations which will transform our immediate neighbours into our allies of tomorrow. We recognise the fundamental truth that it will be possible for us to survive and prosper as an independent political entity only if we have the active and full and friendly support of our neighbours and the British Commonwealth of Nations. Although the Rendel Constitution does not permit this Government an active part in foreign affairs, we, the elected Government of the people of Singapore, consider it our duty to lay the foundation today for the foreign policy of tomorrow, with the full knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, from whom we have received every assistance in pursuing our policy of seeking closer friendly relations with our neighbours It is in the context of this desire on the part of the people of Singapore to initiate close and friendly relations with its neighbours, that it was natural that our first thoughts turned to Indonesia, our closest neighbour and the first territory in this part of the world to achieve independence. Thanks to the tireless efforts of the Indonesian Consul-General in Singapore, Dr. Hermen Kartowisastro, and to the receptive attitude of the Indonesian Government, we received an invitation to send a goodwill mission to Indonesia between the 9th and 14th September. I think I should add that we kept the Federation Government fully informed and, although because of the manifold matters it had to deal with on taking office it could not accept the suggestion of sending a full mission jointly with us, the Federation Government sent an observer and its blessings and good wishes. In Djakarta, in Bandoeng and in Palembang the Singapore goodwill mission was received with full honours and every courtesy. The honour shown us was an expression of the feelings of friendship of the great Indonesian nation towards its young neighbour on the threshold of joining the brotherhood of Asian nations. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Ide Anak Agoeng Gde Agoeng, put it: "Indonesia is glad to welcome the first Chief Minister of Singapore, a son of Singapore, leading the first elected Government of Singapore. We are such close neighbours that we can almost see each other from our windows, and I assure you that we have watched the course of development in the next house with great interest and much sympathy. We, who have already travelled the road to freedom, now see Singapore taking the first long step in the same direction, and it is our sincere hope that the journey will be continued and successfully concluded. We hope that in the not too distant future Singapore will join the ranks of those who are in control of their destinies. We have to consider from now how to lay the foundations for a close political and cultural relationship. One of the unexpected advantages of independence is that those who are independent can choose their own friends. We, in Indonesia, are doubly fortunate that in our closest neighbour we have also a good friend." Hon. Members are perhaps aware of the measure of agreement achieved by the goodwill mission. This was incorporated in a joint communique issued on the 12th of September, and it contained nine points which I shall read: "1. A full Economic Mission (jointly with the Federation of Malaya, if they so desire) will be welcomed by the Indonesian Government in December 1955. 2. A working party will be sent by the Government of Singapore (jointly with the Federation of Malaya, if they so desire) in the first half of October this year for the purpose of: -

"to dispense with the ordinary elections to the City Council in December, 1955, and to provide for the extension of the tenure of office of City Councillors then required to retire", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 12th October, 1955, and to be printed.

"to amend the Civil Law Ordinance (Chapter 42)", presented by the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 12th October, 1955, and to be printed.

"to amend the Police Force Ordinance, 1941 (No. 39 of 1941)", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 12th October, 1955, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Emergency Regulations and their use during the past few years have disturbed the conscience of many decent law-abiding citizens. We, as the people's first elected Government, in the policy speech by His Excellency the Governor on the first day of the sitting of this House, undertook to examine exhaustively "the Emergency Regulations with a view, in so far as is practicable, to dispensing with such powers as are no longer necessary and to the exercise of powers essential for the maintenance of law and order within the framework of normal legal procedure." We added, Sir, that "in considering this matter, regard will be had to all the factors involved, including the Emergency situation in the Federation of Malaya". Now, Sir, although we outlined our policy with some caution, leaving ourselves room to retain such powers as confidential information which might be made available to us might indicate to be necessary, we were at that time - I will frankly confess - of the view that we could sweep away the entire structure of the Emergency Regulations without endangering the fabric of security of the people. That was the 22nd of April, 1955 - five months ago. Shortly after His Excellency's speech, Sir, we watched efforts to fan and twist a perfectly legitimate trade dispute at the Hock Lee Bus Depot into an instrument for mob violence which exploded in the horrible riots and brutal murders of May 12th. That was our first introduction to the technique of a group of hardened persons, loyal to a foreign ideology of tyranny, who, without regard to human suffering, seek the creation of conditions of chaos and the violent overthrow of a democratic form of government, in order to bring the people of this territory under their control. We next witnessed, not long after, another legitimate strike, this time at the Singapore Harbour Board, being twisted and tortured in an effort to repeat the success of the Hock Lee riots. Strenuous efforts were made to paralyse our economic life. It did not matter how much the pitiable, misled worker suffered, if only these malevolent organisers of chaos could succeed in their aim of overthrow of the Government by mob violence and the creation of conditions which would bring about the supremacy of their brand of ideological tyranny. But for the existence of some sincere trade unionists in the Trades Union Congress, in the Naval Base, and in the docks, there could have been an even greater holocaust than the Hock Lee riots. Sir, a letter signed by the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) throws light on the conduct of these pseudo-trade unionists who organised the abortive illegal strikes - I repeat, illegal strikes - of last June. The letter was typed on the head-note of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, 149 Middle Road, Singapore, 7, dated 12th of June, 1955, addressed to the Manager, Singapore Cold Storage Company, Limited, Orchard Road, Singapore. In referring to the so-called sympathy strike of the workers of the Cold Storage, this is what it says: "Sir, This is to notify you that the action taken by our members is not directed against your Company but is taken in support of the common demands of fraternal unions presented to the Government in respect of detained unionists." There we have, Sir, the naive admission by the Hon. Secretary - the name is Lim Ching Siong - the admission that the workers are made to suffer, not in pursuance of a trade dispute, but in order to blackmail the people's Government by mob coercion. It is a technique, Sir, of the Communists throughout the world to infiltrate trade unions and to work ostensibly for the welfare of the labourer in order to gain his confidence. Then, when the time is considered ripe, they sacrifice him. The Malays, Sir, have a word for this type of pseudo-trade unionists. They call them "topengs". One of the trade unionists at that time who was detained, the House will remember, was Yong Kok Kim, President of that very union of which the Member for Bukit Timah was and is the Hon. Secretary. The Communist Party aliases of Yong Kok Kim, as admitted by him, were Sang Swee Sen, Ah Yong and Yong Lim. This, Sir, is what the Member for Bukit Timah had to say about the detention of Yong Kok Kim. I read from an article in the Straits Times of Monday, July 11, 1955, headlined "JAIL ME TOO, SAYS LIM". It is cheap to shout to the bushes that you are looking for wars when it is known full well that this Government does not arrest arbitrarily. Let us see what the statement was that the hon. Member issued. In a statement issued from the Union Headquarters in Middle Road, Mr Lim said: "The abuse of power provided by the Emergency Regulations has once more been displayed by the arrest of Mr Yong Kok Kim." Abuse of power, Sir. "I", said Mr Lim, "share the same beliefs and have the same aims as Fong Swee Suan and Yong Kok Kim. I therefore challenge the Government to arrest me too". Sir, that was July 11, 1955. On August 24, 1955, Mr Yong Kok Kim was convicted in an open court of law and sentenced to five years' imprisonment for terrorist activities. Sir, in the light of this statement of the Member for Bukit Timah - that he shares the same aims and the same beliefs as this convicted man - and in the light of the statements he has seen fit to issue criticising the present Bill, in lurid language, I think it is pertinent to enquire and to ask him whether he speaks as a man loyal to the democratic process and to the people and territory of Singapore, or whether he speaks as a Communist and a fellow sympathiser of the Communists. That question was once before addressed to the hon. Member by the Hon. the Chief Secretary. It was evaded with the heavy-handed technique we know so well. He said, "I will not answer a colonial official." Now, I, Sir, who have the privilege today of standing here in this House as the chief of the people's representatives, ask him to declare himself, so that the people will know, when he speaks about this Bill, where he stands. In our examination, Sir, of the Emergency Regulations, we studied voluminous memoranda. We received top-level representations from the Federation of Malaya, and I spent some time in the Special Branch and its departments examining documents, investigating procedure, looking at files, and talking to ex-terrorists. At the outset, it is important that the hon. Members of this House should know of the representations from the Federation of Malaya. General Bourne, as Chief of Operations against the terrorists in the Federation, and the Defence Secretary of the Federation emphasised with the utmost gravity that any relaxation on the part of Singapore in its laws against Communism and Communists would mean a stab in the back to the Federation. They said we would make of Singapore a rest camp and a rearming centre for terrorists and would create a wide open door for them to pour into the Federation, so that in a matter of a few months the security position of the Federation could be jeopardised. To us, Sir, on this side of the House, and I hope to all in this House, the welfare of our brothers across the Straits is a matter of very real and immediate concern. If there was no other reason, that plea was sufficient in itself, Sir, for us to exercise the utmost vigilance for their protection. But that plea alone, the needs of the Federation alone, were not the sole reason, Sir, for this Bill. After what we believe to have been careful consideration - anxious consideration, Sir, on my part - in the light of the attitude with which I originally approached the whole problem, I am today satisfied that this law is essential for the protection of the people of this country and for its nascent democracy. It is the primary and supreme duty of a government to provide for the safety and security of its citizens. Since 1948 there has existed in this territory, and to a very far larger extent in the Federation, a subversive organisation inspired by an ideology of tyranny and violence, which indulges in all the techniques of murder and intimidation, and seeks to overthrow the people's government of today, as it sought to overthrow the colonial government of yesterday. It does not matter to these people that if they were successful, they would bring ghastly misery and starvation to the whole population of Singapore. I ask this House to remember this: Singapore eats because it serves the free world. If Singapore were to become Communist, we would cut ourselves off from those whom we serve. We would be unable to earn our living, and as we produce nothing, we would starve miserably and suffer even more than we have suffered under the Japanese occupation. But that does not matter to these gentlemen of this international subversive organisation that seeks to bring us within the fold of their tyranny - these people who pretend to seek the welfare of the common man. With such an organisation existing and constituting a real threat to our security and to the safety of individuals, the question remains, Sir: can Government protect its citizens; can Government protect the country by use of the normal process of the law? Justice in our Courts, Sir, is based on two fundamentals, as you are aware, and as some of my hon. Friends across the floor are aware. One is that the honest citizen, who is in the great majority of the population, 99 per cent, would be ready and willing to give the Police all information he has of any criminal activity. The second is that he would be ready to give freely of his knowledge on oath in open court. Unfortunately, Sir, as Members of this House are fully aware, this small but well-disciplined group of hard core terrorists has succeeded in a large measure in intimidating our population, so that few of them will volunteer information, and none of them will come to open court to give evidence for fear of his life. Furthermore, Sir, it often takes a very long time, sometimes years, to build up a picture of the activities of terrorists. They have many aliases as Yong Kok Kim, the President of my hon. Friend across the floor, had - several Communist Party aliases. They have a technique of changing their home addresses, and changing their places of work, and you have to build up the picture from statements by various persons detained, who know only the aliases, and who can give you certain information; but by the time the jigsaw puzzle is complete, some of the persons who gave the statements on which the picture is built may already have been repatriated. Sir, I like it to be understood that under this law it is not a question of imprisonment, it is a question of preventive detention - detention to prevent conduct which may gravely prejudice the security and safety of the State and its citizens. Very often, Sir, we consider that the departure of the detainee to his place of original birth would put him sufficiently far away from us to render him innocuous, or at least harmless. In those circumstances, Sir, it has been and will continue to be the policy of this Government to repatriate as soon as possible as many as we can. These people having been repatriated, Sir, all we have remaining are their statements, and these often give very valuable information. Sir, no government can abdicate its duty to protect its citizens, and since we cannot utilise the full magnificent judicial process and judicial tradition which we have for the trial of these individuals who constitute a threat to our security, we have to seek extra-judicial means for our very survival, and yet give the maximum possible protection to the citizens. Sir, in this search for a law to fit the formula of the maximum security for the citizen within the context of the basic security of the country, we have studied the laws of our neighbours who have the same problems. I have supplied to every single Member of this House copies of the Security of Pakistan Act, the Preventive Detention Act of India, and the Public Order Preservation Act of Burma. Each and every one of these laws of our great neighbours gives powers to the Executive of preventive arrest and detention. If hon. Members have studied these laws, Sir, they must admit that the Bill now before this House is far and away the most liberal, the most circumspect in every detail, and the one that gives the greatest protection to the basic rights of a human being. We, on this side of the House, Sir, have striven with sincerity to give every possible protection to the honest citizen from the possible abuse of executive power, and I venture to say that we have done far more in that direction, with respect to our neighbours, than all our neighbours combined. They are far greater people with far longer traditions of democracy than we have. When I was in Indonesia, Sir, I naturally made the same enquiries. This matter has been very much on my mind, and I learned that in Indonesia they have a law known as S.O.B. which provides for preventive arrest and detention. Unfortunately I have been unable to obtain a translation as yet, but I will certainly supply a copy to hon. Members as soon as I can get it. This Government is only too anxious to give the maximum possible protection within the context of the protection of the people in the country. I understand that the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. - dominated unions, startled by the evidence of which they were in ignorance - and, frankly, I have to confess, of which I was in ignorance before - that all our neighbours have these laws which provide for preventive arrest and detention - have now come out with a strange and a fantastic explanation. They say it is quite all right for India, Burma, Pakistan and Indonesia to have these laws. They are independent countries, but we are a colony. We should not have any! A colony, it seems, Sir, cannot, must not, and should not legislate for the security of its citizens and its form of government. What a fantastic stand for a Party that pretends to hope one day to govern the people of this territory! It has also been suggested by my Friend, the Member for Bukit Timah, that this law will be used by this Government, Sir, to perpetuate colonialism! I am happy for the recent constitutional crisis because, amongst other things, Sir, the private correspondence between His Excellency and myself was ordered to be published, and any person who has read that correspondence knows that the Coalition Government and each and every one of the Parties constituting it, and each and every one of the Members on this side of the House, was ready and willing to sacrifice himself in order to pursue the principle of rapid self-government for this territory. Anyone knowing that but pretends to believe that this Government will use the law in order to perpetuate colonialism is defrauding himself. Sir, there have been some criticisms - on the face of them legitimate, and some of them, in fact, very constructive - directed against this Bill. The first one I will deal with is that it seeks to make law for three years what has so far been law for only three months at a time. In the past we had to renew this law every three months. The question of renewal of a law every three months was based on the concept of the existence of an emergency. This Government, Sir, believes in facing facts. A situation which has existed for eight years and promises to exist for many more cannot be called an emergency. That, Sir, is a misnomer. It is today part of the fabric of our lives. It is just possible, Sir, that the amnesty which has been offered by the Federation and ourselves may bring about a radical change in the situation. If that happens - I pray it happens - I will be only too happy to review the situation and to remove what I frankly admit is an inroad in the rule of law. We of the Singapore Government offered the amnesty because we hope to attract back to the normal healthy democratic way those who were loyal nationalists but who, through frustration and bitterness and inability to improve the existing conditions, strayed into the camp of violence and tyranny. We are not hopeful that international Communism will really relax its efforts to obtain by violence, control of this strategic island. At the same time, Sir, although we cannot see at present the end of the situation which requires the existence of this law, we wish to give this House an opportunity, before it is dissolved, of reviewing the whole situation. This Government has never avoided, and so long as I survive on this side will never avoid its responsibilities, and instead of making it four years and "passing the buck" to the next government, we will have to face this House, at least five months before its dissolution, and review the situation. That is the reason for the three-year period. It is not intended as a permanent measure, but it is not conceivably a palliative for three months. Let us face it. The second criticism, Sir, which has been levelled at the Bill is that the power to order detention has been given to the Chief Secretary, a colonial official. We did consider that before we drafted the Bill, and it seemed to us a somewhat invidious position for the Judges of the Appeal Tribunal to sit in judgment on a decision for an order of detention of the Council of Ministers, and we thought that there was sufficient protection if the Council of Ministers could have the power of review every six months. This criticism, Sir, has come from many sides - from perfectly decent people, from the Press, and from some loyal trade unionists whom we have learnt to respect at a time when many went berserk. They have convinced us that, despite the illogical position, it would be more acceptable to give the power of original detention to the Governor-in-Council. Hon. Members have received from me this morning notice of an amendment which I shall move at the Committee stage of this Bill. I have accepted and acceded to the criticism, and the Bill now provides that not the Chief Secretary but the whole Council of Ministers will consider the reports before an order of detention is issued. Another criticism is that this power of detention is extended from that against persons who are a threat to public security, to persons who are a threat to the maintenance of essential services. This extension which follows our neighbours' provisions was introduced in order to protect the country against possible acts of sabotage and in order to protect the worker against the type of illegal general strike with which he was saddled and under which he suffered last June. We consider that the worker should be protected from the "topengs", the pseudo-trade unionists, when they seek to sacrifice him and the community. We consider that the community should be protected against illegal strikes in essential services, and the operative word is "illegal". There cannot be and there never will be any question of the utilisation of these powers against persons who are lawfully pursuing their constitutional right to strike after proper notice has been given, even in essential services. Sir, it was an eye-opener to us - the general strike of last June. We all knew, the whole public knew, who were the principal and ostensible organisers of that illegal strike, and yet when we sought to obtain evidence in order to bring them to court; when we examined more than 70 trade unionists for statements - though many of them freely and frankly gave names and indicated in what manner there was intimidation and a threat to bring about this general strike - not one, Sir, would give evidence in public. When it came to formal statements for the Police records, they said, "We went on strike because we felt like going on strike that day! Nobody told us! We each individually just decided that we wanted to take a holiday that day, so we went on strike! That is all there was to it! We just decided to go on strike!" Very clever. Very clever. And we are being blamed today, Sir, for seeking to protect the people from these who made a laughingstock of the law, of the security and the comfort of decent citizens. However, Sir, in answer to the fears of responsible trade unionists, I have already given notice that I will introduce amendments to clause 3, that I will delete the word "supplies", and that I will define with precision the words "essential services", so that there need be no fear of any ambiguity. The new clause, as it will be amended, is before hon. Members. Sir, I should like to say a few words about the protection which this Bill gives to the ordinary citizen. Neither my friends of the P.A.P., nor those who are not my friends of the P.A.P.; nor the unions which called that absurd meeting on Sunday and issued its abusive memorandum, illogical and lying, which some have received today: nor even the Progressive Party which in the past used to stand for the progress of vested interests, have seen fit, Sir, to draw attention to the immeasurable improvements we have brought to the original Emergency Regulations for the detention of persons suspected of conduct prejudicial to the safety of this territory. It seems, Sir, that at least in this city and in this territory there is no such thing as fair play in politics. We have been abused and maligned, but not one word was said, Sir, about the successful efforts for improvement and to liberalise the law that now stands. I should in this House like to take the opportunity, which is mine, to draw attention to these improvements because it seems to me that, like this so-called nine-man committee which represents 80,000 people, it is just possible that hon. Members themselves have not read the Bill. I have already drawn attention to the amendment making it necessary for the whole Council of Ministers to decide on the original order of detention. There is no such safeguard in any other law of preventive detention, past or present. In order to give the citizen the greatest sense of security possible, Sir, this law requires that the Appeal Tribunal should consist of three Judges, men whose traditions of impartiality, integrity and responsibility through the decades in this territory have earned the respect of every single member of every community. It is three Judges, Sir, who will form the Appeal Tribunal. There is no such protection in any other law in any other territory which provides for preventive detention and arrest. The Appeal Tribunal, Sir, if it considers that there is not enough evidence to justify the detention, can order the release of the detainee. That order is final. It does not matter how dangerous the Government or the Special Branch may think a man is. If the Tribunal of three Judges orders his release, Government must obey. Under the Emergency Regulations and under the laws of our neighbours, the Appeal Tribunal can only advise the Government. The Government retains the final say as to whether it is to release the man or not. But we, and I who have worked in our Courts, have so strong a sense of respect for the responsibility of our Judges that we are content and happy to leave the matter in their hands: and if the three Judges, or the majority of them, decide that the man must be released, Government has no further say. This, Sir, is a radical change in the principle of laws of preventive arrest and detention. No other country in the world, not a single one of our neighbours, provides the protection to the detainee which this law does. It is a malicious falsehood to suggest that this law gives the Government power to arrest anybody whom it dislikes - the Member for Tanjong Pagar, for example - and keep him in prison on a free holiday at the expense of the Government -

With "Class A" rations!

I shall bring you some titbits, myself! Sir, even if the Tribunal confirms the order of detention, the three Judges of our Courts - not ex-Judges, but serving Judges - even if that Appeal Tribunal confirms the order of detention, it is the duty of the Government to see that within six months - and in these six months - a Reviewing Officer, whose qualifications are such that he himself could be a Judge, reviews the history of the detainee and reports on it to the Council of Ministers, and it is the duty of the Council of Ministers every six months to look afresh at the case. The Ministers are not permitted, Sir, by this law to forget for a moment a man they have detained. There is no other country in the world, not one of our neighbours, which has laws of preventive arrest and detention which give this additional opportunity and additional protection to a detainee. I think it proper, Sir, that I should inform this House, or perhaps remind it, that this Government, of which I have the honour to be the Chief Minister, has used the Emergency Regulations with circumspection, that the majority of the people detained have been or will shortly be brought to court, and that the large majority of the remainder have freely admitted to being members of subversive organisations and have been repatriated or are awaiting repatriation. Sir, it may mean nothing to hon. Members across the floor, but to the public which has seen us struggle to the utmost of our power for its welfare, to the people of Singapore I give this assurance, with all solemnity, that this Government, and so long as I am Chief Minister, will exercise its powers under this law - if it becomes law - with the utmost circumspection and with the keenest sense of responsibility to the individual as well as to the State. Our conscience is clear. We have acted with honesty and sincerity to protect the welfare of the people and of the individual. Though we unhappily find it necessary, Sir, in the light of experience to perpetuate the law of preventive arrest and detention, we have so improved it that I would be content to live under it, even if the Member for Bukit Timah were Chief Minister!

The Judges will be changed!

I am interested, Sir, to hear that comment. I am told by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that the Member for Bukit Timah will change the Judges! I can only say: Shame on the P.A.P.! Shame on you, Sir! We have not been slow to accept criticism and to benefit by it, as is proved by the amendments of which I have already given notice, and many other amendments which I shall bring, not of a vital character, but which will certainly improve the Bill, when we reach the Committee stage. I would like to say, Sir, in this instance at least, I am grateful to the Press and to the Trades Union Congress for constructive criticism, some of which has been most helpful. It is because we hope that hon. Members across the floor will also show a spirit of constructive criticism which will make this Bill as nearly perfect as possible, that Government has decided not to take the Committee stage today. We would like, if it is possible, the Opposition to consider with a sense of responsibility amendments which can improve this Bill. We, who have done our utmost, do not pretend to be omniscient, Sir. We would be glad to consider each and every suggestion, and would gladly accept any improvements which do not destroy the basic needs. As guardians, Sir, of the safety of the people and the democratic form of government, which alone can assist us to a full and fruitful development, we bring this Bill asking for the weapons necessary for the discharge of our duties. You cannot refuse your guardians the necessary weapons. The people of Singapore must be protected against those who would, with violence, trample on their interests in pursuance of a loyalty to a foreign ideology of tyranny. Those who refuse the Government the power to protect the people will stand self-condemned. The people of Singapore may be illiterate, Sir, but they are not fools and they will not forever be fooled. We are proud to have sloughed away many of the provisions of the Emergency Regulations. What remains is essential. It is with a heavy heart that I introduce a Bill, Sir, which does not completely remove the existing inroads in the rule of law as I had hoped in the early days of my government. I believe this law is necessary for the protection of the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation of Malaya whom we should never forget. I commend this Bill, Sir, to the honest attention of this House. Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Chief Minister. I do not propose to speak on the relative merits and demerits of the Emergency Regulations. As far as the Alliance is concerned, our platform indicates that the Emergency Regulations should be amended at the earliest possible moment. Sir, what we must remember is that our island is gradually forging ahead towards independence. We are faced today, not only with the power of colonialism, but also with other factors which are just as bad as colonialism. If we desire to free ourselves from colonialism, we must also guard against attempts by these other factors which will no doubt try to bring about another form of colonialism that would be with us for the rest of our lives. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we all agree that every person regards human rights and personal liberty as sacred and inviolable. Consequently any legislation under whatever title - whether Emergency Regulations or Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - which contains provisions interfering with or restricting such rights is undesirable. We intensely dislike such interference or restriction. At the same time, we also intensely abhor the causes which make it necessary to introduce such restrictive legislation. We all know why the Emergency Regulations were introduced and how they were operated to the dislike of the people. How certain parts of these restrictive Regulations were removed not so very long ago, and how quickly the same objectionable parts had to be re-introduced by this same Assembly! In giving an account of these events, I am not saying that the reasons for the introduction of the Emergency Regulations and those which led to their re-introduction not very long ago are the same, but they both result in the loss of life and property and are detrimental to the peace and order of this Colony. I am confident that every Member of this House, as well as the public, abhors violence. Today we are considering whether it is possible to pass a Bill or Bills for the preservation of public security which, we are assured, when accepted, will result in the repeal of the much disliked Emergency Regulations, but which contain some of the objectionable features found in the Emergency Regulations. Before I express my opinion on this Bill or Bills, I feel it is my duty, first of all, to ask myself whether the causes which were responsible for the introduction of the Emergency Regulations, and the factors which are responsible for the re-introduction of certain objectionable parts of these Regulations that have been repealed earlier, have now com- pletely disappeared. I am not a member of any political Party, hence I am not bound by any political programme; but in the light of past events, the state of affairs in the neighbouring territories, and the as yet unpredictable results of the amnesty, I regret to say that I cannot convince myself that this country can do away with some of the provisions in the law to maintain peace and order. I do not, for a moment, pretend that this legislation will serve as a cure for such evils. No, no. The remedy lies elsewhere. It can only serve to prevent outbreaks of grave and unforeseen incidents; nor do I suggest that such law should have provisions giving unlimited powers to one single executive to do anything he pleases without any safeguards whatsoever. I am not a lawyer, so I do not pretend to know the extent of the implications of some of the provisions in the Bill. As far as I can see, it gives very extensive powers to the Executive. Fortunately we have several very eminent lawyers in this House. It is therefore my hope that when they examine this Bill in Committee, they will only retain such powers as are necessary for the preservation of peace and order. They should see to it that the rights of the workers in legitimate trade union activities are not interfered with. Subject to suitable amendments along these lines, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard what the Hon. the Chief Minister has said this morning. Sir, as a trade unionist, I cannot but express the alarm of the trade unionists in this Colony. The Labour Front Coalition Government has come into power because the people had placed their faith on the programme they promised to carry out. One of the central features of their programme was the Emergency Regulations. These Regulations were imposed to meet the political conditions that arose at the time. Earlier this year, Sir, most of us in this House - I am afraid I have got to say with the exception of the Progressive Party - realised the feeling of the people in this country on the Emergency Regulations. These Regulations were no longer serving the purpose of saving the country from a grave political crisis, but were, in fact, a fetter on the political development of the people in this country. Trade unionists and freedom fighters were fully alive to this threat of the Malayan freedom movement and to ordinary trade union activity. The colonial Government was struggling to convey the impression that they were helping the people of this country towards self-government, and were encouraging the development of trade unions. I say "struggling to convey the impression" because they desired to maintain themselves in this country by the use of the power of the Emergency Regulations. Today the Labour Front Coalition Government is in power, but under a very different political situation. We have today people who are no longer afraid of fighting for their democratic rights, people who no longer intend to live in servility, people who will no longer submit in silence to the threat and coercion brought upon them by this piece of legislation. What is most important, Sir, is that our people, who stood together against these Emergency Regulations, have sent to this Assembly House today their representatives to carry out their election pledge. When the Labour Front came into power, it was faced with difficulty - problems of the riots and general industrial unrest. In fact, as an aftermath of the elections and the release of energy, and the feeling of greater hopes after the years under the Emergency Regulations, the riots in May this year seemed almost inevitable. Industrial unrest, of course, has not ceased and is not likely to cease as long as conditions of employment are unsatisfactory. With a greater volume of trade union activity and the determined stand of the workers to improve the conditions of living, industrial unrest will continue to exist unless, of course, the Government is able to carry out social and economic reforms in the interests of the people. Sir, these Bills before us today are a great threat to trade unionists who are determined to fight and to secure better terms of employment for the workers. Trade unionists are no longer silent and submissive, and to add to this, we have the threat of new legislation which is, in fact, no different from the Emergency Regulations. Such legislation can easily be interpreted by trade unionists as being in the interests of the employers. The views of genuine trade unionists, who are truly representative of the workers, have been frequently expressed during the past few days, and I am sure that the Government is aware of these views. As a method of expressing their views, they have sought to raise a hue and cry. I am against the imposition of new legislation. If our cries should pass unheeded, I would like to remind Members of the Government that they will be taken to task in the future on the election pledge they made to the public early this year. Sir, only last night the Naval Base Labour Union deplored this Security Bill. Outside this Assembly House now, officials and members of the Naval Base Labour Union are demonstrating against this Bill by peaceful picketing. At this stage, the workers of the armed Services are presenting their grievances to the management. They cannot but feel unhappy at the legislation which may be used against them. Sir, I have been directed by the Naval Base Labour Union to state that the members of the Union are pledged to oppose this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister, during his now very famous election campaign under the old apple tree, had said many uncomplimentary things about the present Emergency Regulations. But there is at least one thing to be said about these Emergency Regulations. It is that they had to be renewed every three months. He now has introduced into this House a Bill which seeks to put into permanent form most of the objectionable features that are to be found in the Emergency Regulations. His excuse is that India and Pakistan have enacted similar legislation, and there is, therefore, no reason why we should not follow suit. May I remind the Chief Minister that India and Pakistan were never oppressed with having to be ruled for seven years under Emergency powers and never had to contend with the position which faces our people today?

Poppycock!

Legislation to protect public security did not follow with indecent haste the long period of rule under Emergency powers. India and Pakistan and our other Asian friends did not have to suffer the indignation of seeing their Government putting into permanent form oppressive legislation which has occasioned a lot of public criticism and public condemnation. The Bill which we are asked to approve today gives the Chief Secretary the power to detain on his own warrant -

Nonsense!

- any person who is suspected of acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or order for a period not exceeding two years. I remember listening to the public speeches made by the Chief Minister. He was against this sort of thing against which he spoke with great passion, yet today the same Mr Marshall, now Chief Minister, seeks to ask us to approve what he a few months ago publicly condemned. My Party and I are opposed to the use of violence in any form. We have striven and will continue to strive to bring about desirable changes in the government of the Colony by constitutional means. We cannot, however, subscribe to what the Labour Government is trying to do today - detention of the people of Singapore on mere suspicion. May I remind the Chief Minister that if he ever attempts to rail-road this Bill through this House today, he may one day have to answer for it? It may happen that he will have to answer to the people of Singapore, and under the very same old apple tree where not so long ago he denounced the Emergency Regulations and all the arbitrary powers associated with them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised sometimes at the ignorance displayed by certain Members of this House who come here with prepared speeches and talk nonsense. They never read the amendments that have been explained by the Chief Minister.

They do not even listen to speeches!

Yes, they do not even listen to speeches! Thank you, Mr Chief Minister! They come to criticise legislation that the Government seeks to pass for the protection of the public against violence and victimisation by forces which seek to turn illiterate masses into mobs of violence. I do not see any reason why any reasonable man, any man who values justice that has been practised in this country, could object to such legislation, which, as explained by the Chief Minister, is much more lax than legislation in other countries such as India, Pakistan and Burma. The Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) said that this law is a threat to trade unionism. I do not see how legitimate trade unionism can be threatened by such lax legislation. There is an assurance by the Chief Minister that no legitimate trade disputes will be taken as reasons for the Government to detain any person. There is also the criticism that this is but a political fetter, and I challenge Members of this House to cite one instance where Government has detained any person who seeks to fight for his political freedom. I urge hon. Members to study the Bill with care and circumspection, and that all reasonable Members will support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. The restrictions on democratic liberties under the Emergency Regulations are just as repugnant under any other name. The claws of the beast remain the claws of the beast, whether in velvet gloves or in silk gloves. For seven years now the forces of colonialism in this country have sought to frustrate the aspirations of the people for democracy and political freedom. The Emergency Regulations were enforced by the colonial power on the excuse that they were necessary for the suppression of Communism in this country. We were told that once the wicked Communists were destroyed, good, god-fearing, democratic-minded and freedom-loving people like our Hon. the Chief Secretary and other executives of colonialism in this country would be able to solve all our political, social and economic problems for us. But after seven years of Emergency Regulations; years of arrests and detentions without trial; or banishment orders and broken families and homes; of untold miseries suffered by thousands of men and women; years of suppression of the basic democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, association and publication; of the suppression of the intellectual liberties of the people, - the general social and political unrest in this country continues. This general unrest will continue and even grow, until its basic cause has been removed. This basic cause is colonialism. If the general unrest, the political, social and economic dissatisfactions are to cease, colonialism must cease first. That is an essential pre-condition. Why have the Emergency Regulations failed in achieving anything at all, besides increased human misery and suffering? They have failed because they do not provide any solution for the political, social and economic problems of this country. These problems require political, social and economic solutions - not punitive or military solutions. The anti-democratic provisions of the Emergency Regulations and now of the new Public Security Bill are essentially punitive and completely ineffective colonial remedies for the deep-rooted political, social and economic diseases of colonialism. Colonialism and colonial officials cannot cure this disease, because they are part of the disease themselves. The only solution for the disease of colonialism is the ending of colonialism and its replacement by complete political independence and full democracy for the peoples of this country. Colonial officials will, of course, claim that they are busy getting the people of this country ready for freedom and democracy. I am not a very clever person, Sir, like the Hon. the Chief Secretary, who can prove that black is white, and that Fascist laws and democratic laws are one and the same thing. I must confess that my Party and I cannot understand how the people of this country can progress towards democracy when they are denied the most basic democratic rights. Only the wilfully blind and the politically ignorant will claim that the powers of detention without trial, and the restriction on freedom of speech, expression and assembly, have not had a repressive effect on genuine political expression and development in this country. Restrictions on democratic liberties have always got a political purpose behind them. Laws which deny democratic rights are valuable, for instance, to colonial officials for the purpose of intimidating the free expression of political views which are contrary to the aims of colonialism. Such laws are useful for the suppression of political and social expressions of popular discontent which are dangerous to the colonial system. They are also extremely useful to those who hate to see the emergence of a strong and genuine trade unionism in this country. There is nothing surprising or shocking about colonial officials who support these laws. Repressive laws are necessary for the preservation of colonialism, and it is part of the duties of colonial officials to pass such laws. But it is an entirely different matter for elected representatives of the people to support such laws. Not only must they not support such laws, but they must actively oppose Bills like the Public Security Bill. Failure to do this will be a great betrayal of the interests of the people to the interests of colonialism. It is especially true for hon. Members of the Labour Front. The Labour Front fought and won the elections on a platform which condemned the Emergency Regulations and asked for their repeal. Everyone knows that the Preservation of Public Security Bill is the same old enemy of democratic liberties in a new and more permanent disguise. The Labour Front now preserves the restrictions on democratic rights which they promised to repeal. It looks as if the Labour Front has changed its backseat drivers! During the elections they behaved as if the people were the backseat drivers of the Labour Front. It is right and honourable for the elected representatives of the people to recognise only the people who elected them as their back-seat drivers, but the people appear now to have met with a tragic rebuff. The Labour Front has chosen the forces of colonialism as their backseat drivers. It is ridiculous to talk of public security under colonialism. What public security is there when members of the public can be arrested and detained without trial? What public security is there when members of the public are denied their basic human rights? Let us not be hypocrites! Let us call things by their correct names. The Bill before this House today is not a Public Security Bill, but a colonial security Bill.

Nonsense!

The laws of colonialism are meant to protect colonialism, not to protect the people. Only a free and democratic Malaya can pass a genuine Public Security Bill which will guarantee the public freedom from detention without trial and the enjoyment of basic human rights. To the Chief Minister who once warned this House against the hand of friendship proffered by my Party, by referring to the Kiss of Judas, I issue a challenge. Will he explain to the people of Singapore, "Whose one now is the Kiss of Judas?" As far as my Party and I are concerned, we shall never commit the grievous sin of exchanging the people as our back-seat drivers for the colonial officials who sit on the Government Benches.

What about my question?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that this House wishes to deny the People's Action Party time to consider the Chief Minister's very calculated remarks. I never like to speak in haste and to regret things at some later date. Since the House wishes me to meet the ferocious attack by the Chief Minister on the People's Action Party straightaway, may I first congratulate him? I have always been an admirer of his tactics in Court, for he is the supreme advocate of the strategy of attack when you are on the defensive. If there is one person in this Assembly who today feels a sense of guilt - if he is the sensitive and honest politician that I have always believed him to be - he must also feel a sense of shame, because he has not had the courage to put his powerful and persuasive arguments before the people who gave him the mandate to come to this House to repeal the Emergency Regulations. One of the basic political tenets of democracy is that a Party is elected on its election platform. Of course, if one wishes to avoid the inconvenience of having to go back to the people after going back on an election pledge one could say, in a moment of flamboyance, "I would break a promise if it were in the interests of the country." To commit that heresy would make a mockery of democracy. The whole attack that the Chief Minister has skilfully directed does not explain why, if he honestly and sincerely believes that he is right in changing his mind, he should not take the people into his confidence, and put these facts before them. Let him ask for a mandate for this most important of all the Labour Front's election platforms - a mandate for the Emergency Regulations to be attired, not in a policeman's uniform, but in the Chief Minister's bush jacket. Everyone knows that the Public Security Bill is but an alias for the Emergency Regulations. There are some modifications and some amendments. For example, from a Review Committee to an Appeal Tribunal; from one Judge with a panel of laymen, to three Judges; from a Judge who could only recommend, to three Judges who could order. But none of these things can explain away the fact that what the Labour Front is seeking to do today is something quite contrary to what they told the people they were going to do. That is the most serious political mistake that any political Party can make in this part of the world. There is one thing which we must prize above everything else. If we condemn the Communists for being hypocrites, for being thugs, for being rogues who intimidate other people, then let us be honest Democrats. Let us face the world and face the music, if we find out that we have made a mistake, as the Chief Minister has said he has. If I were a good actor like the Hon. the Chief Minister, I could feign surprise and righteous indignation at this blatant attempt by his colleagues and himself to cloud this very important constitutional principle by launching into a tirade against Members of my Party, and reciting a slanted account of the now familiar events of the Hock Lee riots and the general strike. If I were David Marshall, Sir, which I am not, I would have thought that the honest thing to do would have been to go back to the people and say, "When we drafted this election platform, I was away learning Socialism in England. My colleagues in Singapore, even more political innocents than myself, were trying to outbid the People's Action Party. They wrote in their platform that they would repeal the whole of the Emergency Regulations when the People's Action Party, with care, circumspection and deliberation, said they would repeal the Emergency Regulations which provide for arrest and detention without trial, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of publication." If the Chief Minister today accurately represents the feelings, the temper and the views of the people, then, no doubt, he and his colleagues would be returned with greater strength and greater confidence. They would have a mandate to go through with this legislation; and I and my Party, if we were also returned by our constituents, would have less reason to doubt the political integrity, if not the sagacity, of the hon. Members on the other side of the House. Not long ago, the Chief Minister himself let one of the biggest cats out of the political bag when, in a moment of anger and bitterness, he recounted how a colonial Governor tried to inveigle him into a conspiracy to cheat the people. The colonial Governor invited him to repeal the Emergency Regulations. Then they, the colonial government, would re-impose them under the Governor's reserved powers. The Chief Minister, his sense of decency rebelling at this indecent suggestion, said he would not cheat the world in such a way as to make it believe that he was an honest democrat, and the Governor was - if I may quote the words of another publication which we have all received this morning, a memorandum which the Chief Minister has referred to in slighting terms - "the vicious and repugnant" instrument of oppression. But we are now being asked to elevate rules and orders under the Emergency Regulations, from the lowly status of Emergency Regulations to the resplendent status of being part of the normal law of the land. The reason advanced is that this is necessary to combat Communist terrorism and subversion. Sir, no one denies that there is Communist terrorism or subversion. When any "ism", be it Communism or Fascism, resorts to violence or terror, it must be resisted. But we are at the same time being asked to believe in democracy. We say we believe in democracy because it is a more liberal and a more civilised way of life. We say we dislike Communism because, under that form of government, they have arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial. They have, what we fortunately so far have not got here, arbitrary powers of physical liquidation without trial. So we are told that the democratic way of life is far superior. Yet, for over eight years now the British and their friends have gradually worked themselves into a frame of mind when, in the name of democracy, they can introduce every rule and every order which is a complete denial of the basic tenets and beliefs of democracy. That I think is the greatest psychological defeat suffered by the British in this battle between the two fanaticisms - Communism and anti-Communism. We, in this part of the world, I think, could profitably avoid being implicated in this clash of fanaticisms, for as long as it is possible. There are other people in Asia, far more knowledgeable in these matters than colonial officials like the Chief Secretary, who believe in dynamic neutralism -

The countries in Asia have not got this law.

Order, please.

Sir, when the Indian Government in 1950 passed their Act, they had a mandate from the people - and that is a great difference.

Ha!

Is it not?

A colony cannot legislate against rape and murder! Only the free countries can!

Mr Chief Minister, order, please.

The Chief Minister has a colourful inclination towards colourful metaphors. We are not saying one should not legislate against rape and murder. In fact, the Chief Minister would have the support of the People's Action Party if he decided to bring further penalties against rape and murder, if it were found to be too prevalent in this part of the world. But -

Not for public security!

- But, Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Chief Minister does not realise is that an independent government, which has the freedom to decide its own destiny, has the right, through its elected representatives, to choose any way of life - any rule of law under which they should live. But in a Colony where the circumstances are different, where the people have never been given the power and their elected representatives the right to decide their own destiny, I say it is morally wrong to do what the Chief Minister now seeks to do. What he is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty and the most fundamental of them all - freedom from arrest and punishment without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it. Of course, the Chief Minister could quibble and say, "After all, it is not punishment; it is not imprisonment; it is detention under the most benign and kind conditions." But no man should be deprived of his liberty. It may be that such a liberal way of life does not and cannot exist in conditions in South-East Asia. But if that is so, then let the Chief Minister at least have the courage to go back to the people and tell them so, and seek a mandate to do what he wants to do. I am sure he will understand that it is better done that way now than deferred for three years. The most important observation which the Chief Minister has allowed to drop from his lips is that, after eight years of the Emergency, we are faced with a problem as grave and as acute as when it began. It is the most conclusive proof that the Emergency Regulations are not the answer either to Communist terrorism or Communist subversion. The Emergency Regulations have not destroyed Communism, but it may well destroy democracy. It has not completely frightened the Communists, but it may act as a dampening restraint on the nationalists. Of course the Chief Minister has not given his assurance to me personally that I would not suffer under these Regulations - but we all believe, at least we all should believe, that as long as his Government is in control, conscientiously, scrupulously, and honestly working these rules and regulations, no one will be penalised or made to suffer who does not deserve to be penalised or made to suffer. But he has not said what would happen if, in fact, these special powers were not used with the same scrupulous care and regard for human values as they are -

Three Judges!

Three Judges! Great play has been made of three Judges! But I should have thought that purely counting by numbers it does not get us very far! One good judge is as good as three. If you have one good judge and you put in two bad ones, I should have thought you would have lowered the mean average! But what does it all prove? It only proves that three Judges can order a man's release against the wishes of the Governor. It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release. There will be three Judges who sit and receive evidence in the absence of the person against whom the evidence is being given, and in the absence of his counsel. I think the Chief Minister will be the first to admit that it does not, in any way, approximate to the protection which a trial by confrontation -

Never pretend to!

I am not saying the Chief Minister pretended, Sir. The Chief Minister pretended a lot of things this morning, but I am not accusing him of this. I am pointing out to him now that it nowhere approximates to the same protection which he, as a criminal advocate, must know is of vital importance. If, after eight years of these Regulations, we are faced with the same conditions - and we are now asked to be more realistic and incorporate these Regulations in a more permanent form for another three years - we wonder whether it is because the Chief Minister and his colleagues expect the danger to exist for another three years, or that only the Bill will exist for another three years. If the Bill is designed against Communist subversion, and will be maintained so long as Communist subversion is present, then I say this Bill will outlive this Legislature and many Legislatures to come, for Communism is not a passing fashion or a passing craze. It is and it has become the way of life of nearly half of Asia and a large part of Europe and we must understand the basic causes of it - An hon. Member: Fight it!

Before you fight it, you must understand what you are fighting. It is no use saying that they are evil men out to wreck, out to create chaos, out to stir up disorder, or out to make the poor worker suffer, when you do not understand, or attempt to understand, why it is that they, and they alone, can work this passion: first, for freedom; second, for their own political beliefs.

They do not win such allies!

They do not what?

Order, please.

It is a significant point, and the Chief Minister should think more of it: that nowhere in SouthEast Asia is Communism more successful than in colonial Indo-China and colonial Malaya. I am not saying that India, Burma, Pakistan and Indonesia have not got their own Communist problems. Communism, as I understand it, and not only from textbooks, is a product of social and economic frustration and discontent. When you have this social and economic discontent and it is exacerbated by the irritants of colonial control, then you have a situation growing into cancerous proportions. I am not suggesting that if we are free tomorrow of the eminent members of the civil and legal services who sit with us here as of right under the constitution, we should be free from all our troubles. But I do say that we have a much better chance of resolving the internal social and economic discontent than we ever can have now. To me, Sir, it is an act of faith. If it does not work, then what can work? Violent military suppression of Communism? It has little chance of succeeding. It might succeed in South America because it is so far away and it is such a different world, where dictators come and go. But Asia in revolt, Asia on the march, is a very different proposition. The Chief Minister, with his flair for colourful metaphor, will appreciate this when I say that the problem of Communist subversion and terrorism has become a cancer in our body politic. These Emergency Regulations at best can only be barbiturates. They numb the pain. They lull one into a sense of security, into an illusion that perhaps, after all, the thing that causes the pain is not there. But I myself would prefer a bold cure. I would take one bold step to freedom. Then I say we have a fighting chance to resolve our own social and economic problems when they are reduced to the proportions which they naturally assume in any part of the world, for anywhere social and economic discontent inevitably leads to industrial and social unrest. I would say that such a free government, speaking for the people, deciding its destiny absolutely and unreservedly, could drastically repeal those parts of the Emergency Regulations which militate against the fundamental rights of human beings anywhere in the world. This would not lead to Communism if such a step were accompanied by an equally bold and drastic economic and social reform. To shrug and doubt is to admit defeat. You may stifle political discontent, but it will come out at some subsequent date in a much more virulent form. If we take our chance now, I say Malaya can succeed as an independent and free democracy. The Emergency as a violent struggle is very probably going through a decline, and a new phase of bitter political struggle is opening up. If we do not relax these Emergency Regulations with a relaxing of this violence, then we are admitting to ourselves that we are irrevocably wedded to what I am sure the Chief Minister will agree is a totalitarian method of government. An hon. Member: Nonsense!

"Nonsense", Sir, covers up a lot of ignorance of many, many things. If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it? I am sure the Minister for Communications will be the first to say that that is what is wrong with Communist States. Then what is done in the name of democracy is right. When it is done in some other name, it is wrong. But these are fundamental beliefs. They may or may not work in Asia, that no one can say. But one can say this:one must have the courage to make it work, to try it; for if it cannot work, then the alternative is one of constant suppression the end of which no one knows. I believe that for seven years now we have developed an Emergency mentality. Many people believe that the only way to keep down any form of agitation, which anybody may have exploited for their own personal or political ends, is by the use of repressive laws, more policemen, and more arrests. But this has been proved false after seven years. I hate to think that after another three or four years, or whenever it may be when the Chief Minister decides to go back to the people, that it is again to be proved false. It is such a futile answer to the Communist challenge. If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself. My plea - to quote from sonic-one in another context - is that the time has come in Malaya for an agonising reappraisal of strategy and strength. To go on blindly in the hope that somehow or the other suppression can prevent latent social, economic and political discontents from manifesting themselves and disrupting the structure of society is a piece of folly to which my Party does not subscribe. I ask the Chief Minister, before he launches into another furious tirade against me and my Party, to think of the political implications it has, first, on himself and his Party, and, second, on Singapore and Malaya. My Party believes, passionately, that the only solution is a hard one, where a great deal of social adjustments may have to be suffered in order that a more stable and a just society could emerge in the non-Communist world in South-East Asia.

Sir, there is to me a most distressing similarity between the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong). I do not mean to imply, Sir, that they are both Communists, but what distresses me, Sir, is that they are both, and in at least one case wilfully, deluded about this self-created bogey of colonialism. The Member for Bukit Timah has his mind so firmly fixed on the evil doings of colonial officials - of those few of us who survive in this exalted Chamber -

Very comfortably survive!

- that he seems to be quite unable to put his mind at all on to the problems which face the Government of Singapore today and which face this Assembly today. He, apparently, is quite happy to face a situation in which, as he says, there will be continued general unrest because of the basic cause of colonialism. Because colonialism, in his view, denies the people of Singapore today their basic human rights, he is prepared, apparently, to continue, from day to day, allowing Singapore to continue in a state of unrest - a state of unrest which, if I know anything about it, so far from his trying to stop it, he will try to inflame. So much for the Member for Bukit Timah. Now how terribly similar is the attitude of the Member for Tanjong Pagar! He treated us to a long dissertation on what he thought the Chief Minister ought to do. Fortunately, he is not yet Chief Minister, and I, for one, and I am sure all on my side of the House are quite confident that the Chief Minister will judge what he should do without receiving free advice from the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who enjoys, of course, all the delights of play-acting in this House, of appealing to the Gallery and never having to honour a cheque. But to revert, if I may, to the point that I was going to make which I feel is distressing and is dangerous. It is that while the Member for Tanjong Pagar understands and sees the danger of the Communist ideology, and is fully conscious of it, he is, in fact, I think, half fascinated by its dynamism and by its selflessness. But what does he do? All he does is to tell us that the Emergency Regulations and colonial methods will not stop the Malayan Communist Party in Singapore. Of course, they will not. No one ever suggested they would, and I certainly do not suggest that, through measures such as the Emergency Regulations and these new Bills, we can root out Communism from the body politic in Singapore. Of course, we cannot. All we can do with these measures is to try and stop it getting out of hand and to try and take away its most dangerous leaders. But the basic issue is the issue which must be fought by the citizens of Singapore - not by colonial officials - but by the citizens of Singapore and by their leaders, and by such people as the Member for Tanjong Pagar sets himself out to be. It is for you to fight this battle. It is for you to capture the minds and the hearts of the citizens of Singapore and to stop them being led away along that false and sterile trail which leads to Communist dictatorship which I know you do not want to see in Singapore. I do warn you and all Members of this House, with the utmost sincerity, against being deluded into this idea that you can avoid being involved in the struggle between Communism and democracy. You cannot avoid it. It is here today. It is with you night and day. Do not, I beg you, delude yourselves with some such extraordinary phrase as "dynamic neutralism". There is not such thing as "dynamic neutralism" in the Communist philosophy of life which is challenging you today, here and now. I say to you that if you wait, which is what the Member for Tanjong Pagar wants to do - he says he cannot fight Communism until he has got rid of colonialism; he cannot fight Communism until Singapore has got independence - I say to you, you cannot afford to wait. The struggle is here for you to fight it now, and the more vigorously you fight it, the quicker you will get independence - an independence which is worth while. Do not give yourself the excuse of not being independent today to refuse to do what is now your duty and what, if you do not do it now, it may be too late to do in the future. The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest the suspension of this sitting?

You are at liberty to move a motion, Mr Chief Minister.

If it please you, Sir, I move, That the sitting be suspended until 2.30 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.36 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, of all the Bills that have been passed as law since after the liberation, the Bill that was disliked most by all people was the one on the Emergency Regulations. We have today, of course, the Public Security Bill which, if we boil it down to its essence, would be just about the same as the Emergency Regulations. However, it has always been our view that extraordinary times need extraordinary Bills, and extraordinary measures must be used to keep law and order. Our view, however, is that the Emergency Regulations, or the present security measures, should not be kept one day longer if necessary. The Emergency Regulations were a temporary measure renewable every three months. This, of course, has its advantage. Any cases in which Government might detain people might be brought up and aired, and any grievances that people genuinely have may get a hearing. The Government also have to make out a case, when the life of the Emergency Regulations is ending and it is time to have it renewed, to show that the Emergency Regulations are still necessary. Now, the Public Security Bill is to be put on the Statute book for a period of three years. I say again that measures such as the Emergency Regulations or the Public Security Bill are distasteful to the people. They are distasteful for various reasons which I will try to explain later, but all are agreed that they are not a very pleasant thing to keep. We governed Singapore before 1948 with no such rules, and I hope that there will come the day when we can remove all such Regulations and return to a normal life. To keep security measures on the Statute book is something that nobody likes. It is something that we would like to put in the backyard, but putting it on the Statute book, making it law, it is just like moving that distasteful substance into the house itself. All people in Singapore and anywhere else value freedom, and anything that is going to take away personal freedom from them will be distasteful and undemocratic. But I say, for a large majority of the people, we need to have such measures to protect them, but people do not like it. I would say that the people who say they are for it just tolerate it. The people who dislike such measures, I think, can be classified under three categories. Obviously, the first category of people are the subversive elements. They hate it, and they hate it with all their might, and you know why they hate it. The second category of people would be, I should say, the ordinary citizens, probably connected with trade unions and respectable people. Some of these people, I should say, may have been called in by the Special Branch for interrogation. There may be a case against them, but more often, as I know it, they are usually let off and, of course, this Bill has given them the jitters that probably they will be the victims of interrogation by the police. There are grounds for their fears, and I think that the power that such measures as these Regulations give to the Government should be used most sparingly, especially with trade unionists who are trying to better the standard of living of the workers. They have legitimate reasons. If we can prove to trade unionists that these measures are not against people doing the right things, we will probably win over a very large section of moderately-minded persons. Now, the last category of people who dislike these measures would be the ordinary men-in-the-street. They dislike them for this reason. We know that if a member of the subversive elements is hauled in and interrogated, and later on other people are called in to give evidence, they will do so on the quiet; but if you ask them to come forward to give their evidence on oath, they will cringe and they will suppress any information that they have. The reason obviously is fear - fear of reprisal. In the same way, the peace-loving citizens of Singapore are afraid of this, not from the subversive elements, but from the police. We know that the power might be given to the Governor in Council that the case might be handled by the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of Police, but, invariably, the investigation part of it must be done by the rank and file. I have, during my short term here, received a number of complaints about detectives putting fear into peace-loving citizens by telling them, "You play ball with us, otherwise we might book you in for this." This is very serious, and I bring forward this point of view because in the Public Security Bill there is power given to the ordinary Inspector to search a house and arrest on suspicion. I believe that must be rectified to make it safer for peace-loving citizens to consider that their home is their castle, and unless there is very strong suspicion, this power should never be used at all. We have just recently heard of an offer of amnesty offered by the Government to subversive elements. What does this amnesty tell us? Is the situation getting worse, or is still normal, or has it gone better? It must have pointed to one of these three. I should say that such an amnesty offer does indicate that the situation is getting more normal, because I should like to think that such a measure is indicative as being the last round for subversive elements to come out so that we can again lead our normal way of life. If it is going to give us peace, as we hope it would give us peace, then I think to put this Bill in the form of the Public Security Bill for three years would not be justifiable. We do not know whether this Emergency situation will end in three months or in six months, or whatever time it may be, but my contention is that the moment the Emergency situation eases, then we must let the Emergency Regulations lapse. Comparing the two Bills - the established Bill, which is the Emergency Regulations, and the second one, this Public Security Bill - I would prefer that the Emergency Regulations remain as they are so that we can have a review every three months. You will gather, from what I have said, that we are not in favour of the present Public Security Bill on the point of the length of time and the power it might give to the Police - especially the junior police officers. This power, as I have said, given to them must be very carefully considered. An experienced man need not have much guidance, but raw hands may sometimes provoke serious incidents which might undermine the faith of the people in the police. I am talking in this trend because I feel that we should have the people co-operating with the police, and every step that we take should strive towards this end. I hope that the Government will consider what I put forward to them in the light that it is for the good of all concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed new legislation, as we see it, is merely a subterfuge to a large extent for the existing Emergency Regulations. The only difference which I welcome as a substantial improvement is that an Appeal Tribunal, with apparent real power, will sit in place of the Advisory Committee whose responsibility is to make recommendations to the Governor who may either accept or reject them at his pleasure. It is quite clear that Government still recognises the need for Emergency powers, and by introducing the proposed legislation (which, if approved, will be incorporated into the ordinary laws of the Colony) it seeks to retain these oft-criticised Emergency powers on a more permanent instead of a temporary basis, subject to review and extension once in every three months. However, Sir, in view of the several amendments just proposed by the Hon. the Chief Minister, in view of the Chief Minister's desire not to legislate the Bill today but to put it in Committee, and in view of the Chief Minister's assurance that further constructive suggestions and criticisms will be considered and further amendments, if any, and if desirable, be adopted, my Party will reserve our position until then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I am a schoolmaster by profession, it is no part of my normal duties to ensure that the Members of the Opposition do their homework. They have come into this Assembly today and, in their speeches, some of them have given considerable evidence that they have not done their homework. They have apparently not read the Bill. They have not read the amendments. They have not even listened to the speeches in the Assembly, but still I will pass this by because those things are in the public eye and will remain so, no doubt. But when they further give evidence of having neglected their homework by attacking us on what they call our pre-election pledges without apparently having read these pledges or knowing what these pledges are, I feel that I should help them to understand what they have apparently misunderstood. One Member of the People's Action Party said in a speech in this Assembly just now that we had promised that we would repeal the whole Emergency Regulations. He is not in the room but those are the words as I wrote them down from his very mouth. That is what he said - we had promised to repeal the whole Emergency Regulations - and he then proceeded to question our integrity because we had not done so. I think that he went extremely far in questioning our integrity and later the integrity of the Judges; as indeed the People's Action Party makes a habit of questioning the integrity of almost anybody who is not a Party member. Now, our pre-election pledges are contained in this little booklet. It had a circulation, I believe, during the election campaign of about 10,000 copies, but I still have a few copies left and if any hon. Member would like a copy I will get it out of my bag and give it to him, and he can see for himself precisely what we said. It is a pity that some people did not have one before. [Interruption.] I am always glad to do a little bit of propaganda! Now, this little booklet - I had my share in drawing it up and I can speak with some authority on it - falls into two parts. The first is our Principles and Aims; those were first published about this time last year and they state broadly our objectives as a Party - our principles and our aims. I will now read to you the 13th point of the Principles and Aims. It is on page 2: "Page 2. The Labour Front stands for investigation of the working of the Emergency and Banishment laws with a view to repeal or revision in conformity with basic concepts of democratic justice and the actual needs of the country." I repeat once again, "the actual needs of the country". An hon. Member: Read the whole thing!

In deference to my own side, I will read it once again: "The Labour Front stands for investigation of the working of the Emergency and Banishment laws with a view to repeal or revision in conformity with basic concepts of democratic justice and the actual needs of the country." That is the first pre-election pledge dealing with the Emergency Regulations. We will pass to the Four-Year Programme which was published last Christmas. You can find it on page 6 under 10 (a). The heading is "The Repressive Laws": "The situation in Singapore does not warrant the continuation of the Emergency Regulations and the Labour Front will seek the removal of this unnecessary and undemocratic restriction on the liberty of the people." "The situation does not warrant this unnecessary restriction" - I hope you will pay attention to the wording because that is not a categorical promise to repeal the Regulations. It is a definite statement that, in a certain situation, certain action will be taken and if the situation changes, the action will necessarily change too. We did not say that we would repeal the Emergency Regulations at any cost. What we said was, "The situation, as we see it now, looks good and promising. The Emergency Regulations are therefore unnecessary and unwarranted." The Opposition can, if they like - they have not done so - accuse us of being "political innocents" and of being unduly optimistic. They can say that we were blind to the real dangers around us. They can say that we were unrealistic about the strength of the Communist menace, and I will freely admit that when we were drafting these Principles and Aims and this Four-Year Programme, I, for one, did not foresee that riots would be fomented in the streets of Singapore. I did not foresee innocent people would be beaten to death in the streets. I did not foresee that the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union would have a Communist as its President, nor that he would be put into open court, prosecuted, tried and convicted. I could not foresee those things. I did not foresee that a harmless schoolboy would be shot down in the open street by a Communist killer squad. I had not imagined that kind of activity, but it happened. We did not foresee the full gravity of the attack that would be made as soon as democracy began to grow in strength in this country. The People's Action Party may have known better. If so, I am afraid, in that case, I cannot congratulate them on their close acquaintanceship with the forces of destruction. We did not realise the full danger. We have had to learn by bitter experience. We can be accused of past optimism; but I do not think we can be accused of lack of courage or of shirking the realities of the present situation. Since this Government came into power, the situation has changed in many ways. It has changed very much for the better with regard to our prospects of early self-government. It has changed very much for the better with regard to our prospects for trade, particularly with Indonesia. There are many points on which we can say the situation is much better. But we must also say that the situation is worse in this respect: that the Communist machine has gone into action, as it always does go into action when it sees that democracy is starting to grow up and establish itself. The actual need has arisen, and we must legislate now to meet the actual need and not to meet the situation of nine months ago. I do not think the Opposition will profess to say that the situation has not, in some respects, deteriorated. The terrorist situation has not deteriorated. I think they will have to admit that. What they may try to say is that, in enunciating the principle that laws are not eternal and that laws must be adjusted to the needs of the moment, they may say that, in saying that, I am putting forward a new and unheard-of principle. They rather tend to talk in terms of absolutes and to say that democracy resides in one particular law and that kind of thing. Now, this is not a new principle at all. It is a principle which was accepted just now by the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong). He said that extraordinary situations need extraordinary laws. It was a principle put forward by the great Greek law-giver Solon more than two thousand years ago, and also by the Chinese teacher Mo Tzu about the same time; but I expect that those classic examples may not appeal to all Members of the Opposition. Perhaps they prefer to have the words of the Soviet jurist, Krylenko. He has since been liquidated, but, in his time, he was an established authority. He said, "At certain moments in history, we quite consciously sacrifice all these guarantees" (that is, the guarantees of justice through normal court procedure) "to the necessity of a swift revolutionary struggle." The fact is that we do not admire the Communist model. We are against it. We can take Mr Krylenko as a practical man. He knew the relative instability and unpopularity of his government, and he knew that it was necessary to defend it. But the fact is that this principle that laws are not eternal - the principle that laws must meet the needs of the moment - is a world-wide principle which stands and will always stand. The question is:What are the laws that are needed in Singapore to deal with terrorism and subversion today in 1955? That is the question we have to deal with, and the Opposition, in considering it, has dismissed it with a wave of its hand, Saying, "India, Pakistan and Burma - Oh no, we cannot take those countries as our models because they are free democracies, and here we are still tainted with colonialism!"

They would not be here otherwise!

Well, shall I give them another example from Russia? Would that be more acceptable to them? At least no one will claim that the Soviets provide a model of free democracy. This is a decree of December, 1934, for dealing with terrorism: Maximum period of investigation - 10 days; The accused receives a copy of the charge only 24 hours before he is brought to trial; The accused is denied any right to defence; The accused is denied any right to appeal; The accused is excluded specifically from any possible amnesty; and finally, Sentence of shooting is to be carried out im mediately after the trial is concluded. That is how Big Brother in Russia deals with anybody who tries to rise up against him! It was used in December, 1953, for the trial and execution of the late Mr Beria, the former head of the Soviet Secret Police. That is how the Communists rule their own country. I do not hold it up as an example for this House to follow. I hold it up as a warning of what will be imposed on us by the Communists if they can get control. That is what you will have if you allow these subversive forces to catch hold of the Government and to dominate you. We here are not, thank God, concerned with defending the totalitarian system in which unity is imposed by repression. Perhaps I ought to digress here for a moment because the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), coming down from his cloud of rhetoric, became rather heated on the question of what totalitarianism is. He appeared to think that totalitarianism resided in some specific item or law - which is a complete misapprehension. In case he does not accept my word for it, I have brought in here a standard political dictionary by Theimer and Campbell - an encyclopaedia, in fact - and if he likes me to refer to it, I will refer to it for him. Briefly, I will sum it up by saying that a totalitarian state is a concept which was coined by Mussolini in the early 1920's, and it means a State in which every single activity, every association, every individual, and everything in the State, is welded by force into a single monolith directed from the top. That is totalitarianism, and every activity, even the thoughts of the children and the thoughts of the adult, are subordinated to the State. For a man who is respected and admired by many people in this city, to use the word "totalitarianism" and thereby to seek to accuse India, Pakistan and Burma, and many other free countries of being totalitarian, is to talk nonsense. I would not put it more highly than that, but I would suggest to hon. Members of the Opposition that when they use words, they should use them with respect for their meanings, and they should not try to arouse feelings by using emotional words when they know very well that those words would not, in fact, hold water -

On a point of information, Sir. Would the Minister for Communications and Works describe the laws that I have referred to as democratic?

It is a point to which I am coming, Mr Speaker, if the Member for Tanjong Pagar can contain his impatience for a moment. I shall arrive at that in due course. I said that we were not concerned here with protecting a totalitarian system, but we are concerned with protecting the strong growth of a young democracy in a country which is moving very rapidly towards self-government; and it is precisely because democracy and self-government are growing and strengthening every day here that the Communist attack is now unleashed. I forget the precise words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but he said something to the effect that Communism has been more successful in Indo-China and Malaya than it has been anywhere else, and he argued that that was because other countries were free and we are still a colonial country. I endorse a good deal of what he said, but I suggest that he remember this: that when Burma cast off the colonial system and freed itself from imperialism, it was then that a Communist walked into the Cabinet Chamber and, with his tommygun, wiped out practically the entire democratic government of Burma. That is what the Communists will always seek to do to democracy. They know that they have no hope of winning power by democratic methods, and as soon as democracy looks strong, they set out to kill it. That is what will happen here as democracy grows stronger here. Another People's Action Party statement on the 26th of April cried out, with an air of great conviction, that no law should hinder free association, free speech and free publication, and that no consideration of security should weigh against the principle of freedom. That was said by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He is a lawyer - and I am told he is a very able one - but he showed less than the legal precision of thought when he sought to proclaim the principle of absolute unrestricted freedom - for anybody to say anything he likes; to publish anything he likes; for any group of people to associate together for any purpose to take joint action of any sort -

On a point of information, Sir. Is the Minister for Communications and Works aware that there are ordinary laws regulating what can be said within the law, when one can foregather and assemble for -?

That is not a point of information, Sir.

Is he aware of it?

Order, please. The Member for Tanjong Pagar means elucidation.

I am aware of it. [Interruption.] The point at issue is the matter of a speech which was made on the 26th of April. I do not think we need dally any longer over it. As I read it, it appears to me to be using words in a very cloudy and vague way, as the People's Action Party often does, because they feel that if they become precise, they have to say things they do not like. As long as they can keep broadly to absolute freedom, it is all right, but when coming down to details, it gets more difficult. The fact, of course, is that the hon. Member knows perfectly well, as everybody knows that freedom depends on law and not on absence of law. In this very Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we meet freely for democratic purposes. We have free speech and what we say is freely published, but the whole freedom of working in this Assembly depends, Mr Speaker, on our Standing Orders and on the very considerable powers which you, as Speaker, exercise under the Standing Orders. Hon. Members who do not know their Standing Orders should look at pages 16 and 17 where they will find that Mr Speaker has powers without appeal; not merely to say, "Sit down", but to control people, to suspend them and even, if necessary, to remove them by force from the Chamber if they behave in a grossly disorderly way. If this honourable, learned and respected House cannot run freely without having controls - very arbitrary controls - in the hands of Mr Speaker to suppress any individual or individuals who behave badly. then I think it is fair to say that the government of a country must also have reasonable powers in order that it should also be able to deal with people who are setting out to subvert democracy and to destroy freedom. The point I am trying to make is that to abandon the rule of law in the name of theoretical freedom will, in fact, often make freedom impossible, and I am sure that when the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Bukit Timah come down from their rosy cloud of rhetoric to the cool thought which I hope they sometimes take, they will realise that law is the basis of freedom and not the enemy of freedom. The People's Action Party habitually prophesy that dire calamity will follow if anybody does anything that the People's Action Party do not like. The Progressives have sometimes shown a tendency to blow other people's trumpets and to borrow other people's clothes, and they sometimes try to follow the People's Action Party line. I must, however, congratulate the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) who made undoubtedly the best speech we have heard from the Opposition today by a very long way. Although the People's Action Party prophecies have almost invariably proved wrong in the past, they still fret and fume and cry havoc. They still bellow out, "Freedom is in danger! Trade unionism is in danger! Everything is in danger! Vote for the P.A.P.!" It is true that there is danger, but the danger does not lie in the direction which the P.A.P. seeks to indicate. The danger does not stand in the open light of this Assembly and in the open workings of the Government. The danger lurks in the backstreets and in the lorongs; in the network of underground subversion; in intimidation by word and deed, by threat and by murder. The danger lies in the deliberate dissemination of hatred, distrust and falsehood, as conscious and purposeful means of political action. It is to defeat that danger that this Bill is necessary. Sir,I take another People's Action Party argument to the effect that we have had for seven years the Emergency Regulations and yet we still have Communist crimes. This proves that the best thing to do is to give up the Emergency Regulations because they are ineffective. But in the streets of Singapore, we fairly often have traffic accidents. Is that a reason for giving up the traffic laws? When murder is sometimes committed, is that a reason for abolishing the Police Force? If we find we cannot win immediately, is that a reason for surrendering at once? A more ridiculous argument I have seldom heard! It is perfectly true that the final answer to Communist activity lies in the political, social and economic sphere, and if hon. Members would like further copies of our Four-Year Programme and our Principles and Aims, they will see that we do not propose the Emergency Regulations as a single thing but that they are one small facet in a very large system -

A very large facet in that booklet!

But large in the eyes of - [Interruption.]

Order, please. Please continue, Mr Thomas.

Sir, perhaps I might remind the People's Action Party of a promise which they gave on the 16th of May. You will recall the significance of that date. There was a long speech dealing with colonialism and the rights of the people that desire freedom and so forth, and it ended with this: "Give us our rights" (that is, our rights to self-government without British control) "and we will fight Communism and defend our freedom." Well, our Chief Minister has moved us very rapidly towards self-government and towards the ending of colonial control. Will the People's Action Party carry out their promise? Will they go out now to the pickets in the streets there and say, "We are opposing the Public Security Bill just for the time being. As soon as we get free self-government, we will support its imposition if the situation warrants it." Will you go out and say that -?

Did I say that just now?

On May the 16th, you said that you would fight Communism to defend your freedom when you had your rights -

I do not believe outright oppression will fight them.

Nobody suggested that oppression is the sole weapon. I have mentioned that before. I do not think you need be afraid of these pickets outside. I went out myself at twenty-five past two to have a look, and I got very well booed for my pains. Though I stood there for some time, nobody noticed me. I felt rather small and unimportant until, finally, the cheer-leader started booing, and off they went booing. People were booing loudly and vigorously all around me, but they did not know whom they were booing. They did not see me until gradually their eyes learned to focus on me - I walked forward a bit so that they could make sure they knew who I was, and then, at last, the booing began to come into focus. For the first minute or so, the booing was just booing for the fun of booing. I do not think you need get frightened of them. They impressed me as a very friendly and jolly lot, and I am sure that if you go out and speak to them honestly and truly, what has been demonstrated in this Assembly; that their right to strike has been guaranteed by the Chief Minister; and if you say that this Bill will not be used to threaten them; and if you truthfully tell them what the safeguards are, I am sure that they will understand -

Why did you not try just now?

Order, please. I take it that the Minister is, in fact, addressing the Chair indirectly?

My apologies, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am being so much addressed directly myself that I was perhaps forgetting myself and allowing my remarks to flow in the wrong direction. I have, in any case, arrived at the end of what I have to say. I will just conclude by repeating again that in this situation in Singapore today, there is a genuine threat, a threat which is clear and obvious, and it should not be twisted, distorted, and misrepresented in the interests of a temporary political popularity. There are more grave issues at stake than that. There are forces in this country which could destroy it. We have our responsibility to the people of the country, and we should carry out that responsibility with the full sense that we are trying to give leadership and guidance where it is very much needed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Opposition is almost unanimous in their attack on the Public Security Bill. It was only to be expected and it is also natural that they should point out to us that, by introducing this Bill, we are going against our election pledges. However, none of them has taken the trouble to analyse the causes of the wave of strikes we have had in Singapore since the Labour Front took office some six months ago. No one can deny that some strikes at least are inspired by forces which do not have the welfare of the people of Singapore at heart. Nor can anyone deny that there are Communist sympathisers in Singapore. Yet when the Government took the opportunity of the grant of amnesty in the Federation to offer local Communists the chance to surrender themselves, the response has been practically nil. It has also escaped the notice of our opponents that Singapore is still a Crown Colony and that subversive elements under the cloak of nationalism are fomenting discontent among the innocent citizens of Singapore. When sovereign Republics such as India, Pakistan and Burma have such laws, there is no reason why we in Singapore, while we are striving for self-government and ultimate independence, should not take measures to maintain law and order, so that the colonial powers may not use any disorder that may prevail in the country as an excuse for delaying the grant of self-government. Anyone who cares for the welfare and well-being of the people of Singapore will not fail to realise the inconvenience and discomfort that they will have to undergo if there is any disruption of essential services. We are pledged to foster the growth of healthy trade unionism in this country, but can anyone honestly claim that all trade unionists in Singapore are working solely for the benefit of the workers? It is indeed a tragedy that certain professional unionists have infiltrated into some unions with no other motive than to promote their own interests and for their own glorification. Until the workers realise that they are being duped and learn to manage their own affairs, it will be in the interests of the people if the Government take steps to ensure that they are not subjected to unnecessary suffering. The Bill before the House provides for safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, and if anyone is subjected to such treatment, he can appeal to a Tribunal consisting of two High Court Judges and a District Judge. The Judiciary is independent of the Administration and there need be no fear that such appeals will be treated as a formality.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our Party, the Progressive Party, has always been realistic in our policy with regard to the Emergency Regulations, and the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) paid us a compliment when he said, by implication, that we were not such political innocents as to have made the mistake which he did when he drafted the Labour Front platform, in thinking that Singapore was ripe for the Emergency to be lifted. Not being so optimistic and being too straightforward, we did not take advantage of the favourable winds created by the shouts of, "Down with the Emergency Regulations!", as a result of which many of our ships did not reach harbour. However, we do not have to borrow other people's discarded clothing. We are not going to deviate from the course we have set ourselves and have taken so far. We have supported and will continue to support the continuance of these Regulations or other similar laws so long as there is violence, terror and fear in Malaya. But we must also re- member that, as we have infringed upon the rights of individuals, we must see to it that no injustice is perpetrated as a result of these Regulations. Much as I admire the Chief Minister's efforts to safeguard further the rights of the detainees in that they are now allowed to appeal to a Court of three Judges, whose decision is final and cannot be interfered with by the Executive, I am unable to agree to the surrender of our right which this Legislature has retained for the last seven years, to receive the report of Government and decide whether the circumstances justify the continuance of the powers of detention without trial. I feel that, as an elected Member of this Assembly, it is our duty to decide periodically whether these Regulations have or have not been misused, and that we cannot delegate this power to the Council of Ministers. I maintain that we should not deprive ourselves of this power granted to us since the inception of these Regulations by agreeing to the provisions of this Bill to last for three years instead of three months at a time.

Sir, all the Parties in this Assembly have given their views on the Preservation of Public Security Bill. As an Independent, I know I can speak without fear or favour, without affection or ill-will, from any Members on both Benches -

I hear there is no favour coming.

Sir, I am very sorry indeed to say that most of us will miss the quarterly review of the Emergency situation by the Chief Secretary and his brilliant speeches from now on. I take this opportunity of congratulating him on his efficiency so far in bringing to the notice of this House the various activities of the terrorists which have been prevalent in Singapore. Nevertheless, I am bound by the mandate from my electorate who have asked me to convey to this House their demand to release all detained persons up to the time this Bill comes into law, and thus enable them to repose confidence in the new Government's intention to implement the various provisions of the new law. They have asked me to convey this message: the people who are detained under the Emergency Regulations are therefore eligible for pardon. From now on, detentions and arrests will be under the provisions of the new Bill, and they will have to wait and see how far the implementation is carried out in a very fair way. I hope either the Chief Minister or the Chief Secretary will be able to give them an answer in this Assembly. I have also been told, Sir, to record at this sitting the views of my constituents that they believe in freedom and justice, and therefore they feel that no person should be detained or arrested without letting him know what the charges are. They also realise the present situation and they feel that some sort of extraordinary power should be given to the Executive. They have asked me to convey to this House the fact that they do appreciate the Government's move and that they have no objection to my giving my approval to this Bill.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Could I ask the Member for Seletar, who brought us this very interesting message from his constituents, whether he subscribes to their views or not?

I cannot understand which one. I think I have conveyed several messages. If it is for the demand of the release of detained persons, Sir, it is their view that they should be released straightaway -

Is it your view?

Whatever their views are, they are my views as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, outside along the picket line, the Labour Front has been described as trying to break an election pledge if we carry this Bill through today, and the hon. Members from the P.A.P. have tried to decry that we, who have given an election pledge, are now trying to break that pledge. The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) read from this blueprint of the Labour Front, but unfortunately the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) was not here. I would therefore ask the indulgence of this House if I quote again from this blueprint of ours for his information and perhaps for his guidance -

You will be surprised! I have studied it better than you -

Order, Mr Lim. I do not think I can allow a repetition of this nature. If hon. Members choose to be absent from this Assembly, I do not think they should be apprised of what has been said. If the hon. Member now speaking wishes to draw the attention of the Member for Tanjong Pagar to this particular point, I suggest that he lay that booklet on the Table.

He can read!

Sir, I wish to repeat this point in order to emphasise once again that the Labour Front does not break its election pledge, and I have that right -

I have ruled that the Minister can lay that blue book on the Table.

Sir, I was one of the members who sat on this Labour Front Four-Year Programme and it was I who was most insistent in wanting the Emergency Regulations repealed because it was felt, at the time when we were considering this, that the situation in Singapore did not warrant a continuance of these unnecessary and repressive laws. When we were returned to power, I was still of the mind that we should have the Emergency Regulations repealed, but in May, just one month after we were returned to power, Sir, our friends over there, not all may be, but our friends over there, with their friends in the Bus Workers' Union and in other unions, were responsible for the riots of May 12th and responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people. It is because of that, Sir, that I now feel that such Regulations cannot, and should not, be repealed in the interests of public security. If there is any blame to be attached for introducing this Preservation of Public Security Bill, it is because of the activities of people such as those represented by the other side. Sir, many trade unionists now say that this Bill will react to the detriment of trade unionism, and yet, Sir, since we came into power in April until now, there have been 213 strikes, 162 of which can be attributed to friends of the P.A.P. Can they honestly say that the Emergency Regulations restrict their activities? Can they honestly say that? In 1953 and 1954 - two years - the total amounted to only thirteen strikes as against 213 within five months this year! They say that this law will restrict the freedom of assembly, and yet, since the Labour Coalition Government came into being, we have, I do not know how many times, had pickets outside this Assembly. Is there any restriction on the freedom of assembly? They should ask themselves that, instead of coming here and talking in high-faulting language about restriction on the freedom of trade unionists, restriction on the freedom of association, movement and assembly. I have received this morning a memorandum issued on behalf of 94 trade unions at a meeting held in the premises of the City Council Labour Unions Federation. Can that Federation say, in all honesty, that the Emergency Regulations prevented them from striking last year and this year? They cannot say that! Can they honesty say that the Emergency Regulations were ever used against them in their strikes? They have never been used! The fact is that their strike was a constitutional strike, and there was no reason why the Emergency Regulations should be applied. Another illustration, Sir. As the Chief Minister has said, Mr Yong Kok Kim, who was the President of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, was charged in open court and was sentenced. Did the Government take any action against the Union? No, he was charged not because of his trade union activities, but he was charged and sent to prison because of his subversive activities. So can they say that the Emergency Regulations or this Preservation of Public Security Bill is aimed at trade unions? Definitely not! This memorandum I referred to just now, Sir, is signed by Mr Jamit Singh, Secretary to the 94 unions and Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. They called a strike this year. Were the Emergency Regulations ever applied in that strike? No, they were free to strike and, in fact, they were even assisted in their claims by a number of other unions. But did we take action against the other unions? No, because those activities were genuine trade union activities. Therefore, I want to say again and I would ask our friends over there to search their own hearts whether this law was ever used against trade unions. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) said that it would be better if we had stuck to our Emergency Regulations and come back to the Assembly every three months for renewal. Sir, the Chief Minister has said that the security of the public is not an emergency. Therefore it is wrong to describe that as an emergency, and this law that we seek to introduce for three years does not mean that it will live for three years. If a situation arises where there is no further need for it, there will be no need to use the powers given under this law at all. The Chief Minister says, "It is the primary and supreme duty of any government to provide for the safety and security of its citizens", and this Bill, Sir, seeks to provide for that safety and security. The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

In reply, Sir. If it please you, Sir, of all the speeches we heard this morning from the Opposition, it seems to me the one that really represents the feelings of the decent and loyal citizens of Singapore was the one made by a Nominated Member, the hon. Mr Ong Piah Teng - his repugnance, his keen anxiety, his gratitude for the improvements effected, and his reluctant acceptance. I can assure him that, for our part, there is no question of being pleased about bringing before this Assembly and placing on the Statute book the perpetuation of a law that is an inroad into the democratic process. There is no question about that. We are not proud of having to do it, but in facing our responsibilities, we do have to do it. Now, much has been made, and that, to my surprise, by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), including every member of his Party, of a suggestion that I have broken faith with my electorate and questioning my political integrity. Sir, it has been suggested that every time we want a measure of this character, we should dissolve the House and go before the public and have fresh elections. It may be that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is even a greater political innocent than he pretends I am, but I must confess that I have never, at any time, read or heard of such a fantastic procedure. I would say to him one thing, Sir - it may be necessary for him and his Party to indulge in that sort of conduct, but for myself, I do not have to wait till the end of the term of this Assembly in order to face my electorate. I face my electorate every day. Cairnhill sits in judgment on Marshall every single day. During the election, and since then - last week was the last time I reiterated it - I have made a solemn promise to the electorate, which no Member opposite has had the courage to do, that if the time ever came when half the voters in my Division decided that they no longer had faith in me, they could ask me to leave. Singapore can speak through Cairnhill today and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. I do not have to go running to my electorate every time I think a measure is necessary for their welfare. I am on trial there every day. There can be no question of breach of faith with my electorate. I do not seek this position against the wishes of the people of the country, Sir, and I should imagine that if hon. Members opposite, one of whom my young friend the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) has so ostentatiously refused to answer the question as to where his loyalty lies - whether it is to Singapore or to Communism - I should imagine that it is not beyond their capacity to organise a petition - if they really had any faith in the suggestion that the people of Singapore or the people of Cairnhill would want to reject me because of this law which I now think necessary to introduce for their welfare. Sir, these gentlemen, who have seen fit to question my integrity, and particularly the Member for Tanjong Pagar, have indulged in a bit of sophistry that it is impossible to square -

Order, Mr Chief Minister. I think the word "sophistry" is probably not parliamentary. Will you please withdraw it?

Indeed, Sir, I do apologise if you think the word "sophistry" is not parliamentary. I certainly withdraw it, but, Sir, I would like to refer to the action of the Member for Tanjong Pagar who, recognising the existence in every Asian territory of laws of preventive detention and arrest, comes along here and, Sir, may I use the word?, quibbles about the right of the Colony to pass laws for its protection. If that is the extent of the intellectual integrity of the P.A.P., I do not admire it. Now, Sir, if I may take the speeches of the Opposition in their order, the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) - apart from this question of breaking my election pledge and the threat of what will happen when I face my electorate, forgetting that I face it every day - has suggested that the Bill is a threat to trade unionists and could easily be interpreted as being in the interest of capital. Sir, the Communists could interpret anything into anything as it suits them. Red is black and filth is something you can eat and shove down the throats of the poor workers. These are men whose hearts are pickled in vinegar and whose ears are deaf to decency. I will not try to convince them, and I do not care how they interpret my actions; and as for the suggestion that we threaten trade unions, it ill becomes a trade unionist, who must be conscious of the way trade unionism has flourished in the past five and a half months, to make such a charge against this Government - five and a half months, Sir. I agree, not previously -

Cannot give credit to them, can you?

Would you? The Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) had nothing to say but give a parrot repetition of the threat of what will happen to us when we meet the people of Singapore. Then we come to the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) whose speech and whose future speeches must now be viewed in the light of his unhappy refusal to inform this House and the people of Singapore of where his loyalty lies. He has told us, Sir, that this is a colonial law, that it is a betrayal of the interests of the people for the interests of colonialism, and that it is an enemy of democratic liberties. Well, Sir, I should like for a moment to envisage what would happen - and I hope that those who are from India here will forgive me - if this were repeated in India which has an identical law. I take it then, by analogy, that India is introducing and perpetuating a colonial law for the betrayal of the people of the country in the interest of colonialism and that India is an enemy of democratic liberties. It will be remembered that the Bill before the House is far more liberal than the law that has been and is in force in India. Then he said, Sir, "What public security can there be when a man can - be arrested and detained without trial?" Has he stopped to think what public security can there be when police officers can be shot to death and witnesses killed and intimidated - which is happening and which has happened - what public security can there be? Then, we come, Sir, to the pink barbiturates of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) -

It is good, is it not?

I do not care for drugs! He asks how we expect to solve and cure Communism with repressive measures when the past eight years have proved that those measures cannot achieve that end. The answer, Sir, is this: The Emergency Regulations of the past and the Public Security Bill of today will not cure this country of Communism. All it can do is to contain it, to lessen its possible effect until such time as the tender growth of democracy in this territory is sufficiently strong and flourishing that the forces of evil and their vitriolic hatred, which pours out of them like sap out of a rubber tree, cease to have the vicious effects they have in blinding the people of the country to their true welfare. That is all this Bill is expected to do. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) has made somewhat serious charges against members of the Police Force and asks us to view them with suspicion. Sir, it is this Force which protects his life, his safety, his property and his honour. It is this Force which makes it possible for him and for the rest of us in this country to walk about in peace, without fear of molestation, and I feel it comes ill to make accusations of so vague a character about the Force which has proved itself worthy of our gratitude in times of stress and in times of peace. If he has complaints with any basis, it is surely a matter of elementary courtesy and decency that the details should have been communicated to the Chief Secretary or to myself and investigated? I trust, Sir, that he will, at a not too distant future, take an opportunity either to withdraw those unhappy allegations or to substantiate them. It is easy to attack those who cannot hit you back, and I feel that that is not a gesture which the Member for Serangoon would care to make. Now, one novel suggestion comes from the Member for Seletar. He asks us now that we have got this new Bill to release the old criminals. I do not know where the logic is, but I would like to assure him that his suggestion has certainly given me an idea and perhaps we can work it out in Committee. Perhaps we can work out, Sir, a provision whereby those who have been detained in the past can be given the full protection of the provisions of the present Ordinance, including the right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal in spite of having failed in their past appeals. I am not promising anything except that I would like to consider that idea which he has given us today. One final thing, Sir, and it comes as a surprise to me: it is that not a single Member opposite, in considering the provisions of this Bill, has seen fit to refer to our duty to the Federation - not one. The Federation, it seems, does not exist when it comes to indulging in political manoeuvring but we, On this side of the House, have a sense of responsibility and we will not forget our duty to those across the Straits. Nor has any single Member of the Opposition suggested how we can meet this threat to the security of the people and of the individual without extra-judicial powers. It is so easy to criticise and it is distressing to see how little of what is constructive has come forward today.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

If it please you, Sir, the 12th of October.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, might I enquire if it is possible to adjourn now instead of cutting up my hon. colleague's speech in two parts - there is only five minutes -?

Standing Orders do not provide for that, Mr Chief Minister.

If it please you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, is divided into six parts and deals with a number of different matters which, at first sight, bear little relation one to another, but they do have this in common. They are all measures which the Government considers are necessary, in the present circumstances in Singapore, to strengthen the law against those who seek to overthrow the lawfully elected Government by violence, or who seek to subvert the minds of the people by intimidation, away from genuine democracy and constitutional advance to self-government, to the rule of fear and to ultimate Communist domination. They also have this in common: that all are measures which we hope and believe will only be required for a limited period, a period during which we hope that the citizens of Singapore will learn by experience to distinguish between liberty and licence, between good leaders and bad leaders, and will learn to see the dangers into which the Malayan Communist Party and those who compromise with them are likely to lead this country. These measures, we think, are necessary during a period of immaturity in understanding and practising democracy to safeguard us from the dangers that beset us on the path to maturity. We hope, therefore, that they will no longer be needed after that period and, accordingly, all these various matters have been put together into this one Bill which, by sub-clause 2 of clause 1, is to remain in force for a period of only three years. As the title of the Bill indicates, these are temporary additions to our criminal laws. Part I of the Bill deals with definitions applicable throughout the Bill and needs no further explanation from me at this stage. Part II is directed at the Malayan Communist Party and its killer squads, who seek to impose their rule by murder, arson and intimidation. It provides increased penalties for those who attack life or property by the use of explosives, and for those who consort with them. It also deals with those who furnish supplies to these people who seek to undermine public security, and it provides penalties for the making and the possession of subversive documents. I trust that this House will accept the necessity for these admittedly stern measures in order to deal with the ruthless and secret activities of the Malayan Communist Party. If and when that Party should renounce violence and murder, then it may be that these additional powers and penalties can be discarded. I should like to make it clear that all the offences laid down in this Part, and the offences provided throughout this Bill, are subject to trial in the ordinary courts of law. The accused have full opportunity of making their defence and sentences are only imposed on conviction after a fair and full trial -

Order, order. Moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed - what day?

Tomorrow, Sir. Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock p.m.

Wednesday, 21st September, 1955

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will state what steps the Government is taking to have the existing vacant as well as the newly created specialist posts filled at an early date; and whether the Government would consider appointing suitable local officers to act in such posts pending the appointment of substantive holders to them.

Assuming that the question refers to specialist posts in the Medical Department, the vacant posts are periodically advertised in the local press and officers are being trained to fill them. Officers are appointed to act in vacant posts when suitable to fill them.

asked the *Chief Secretary whether, in view of the advertisement for applications for specialist posts appearing in the August issue of the Local Press and waiving the 10 years' general and 5 years' specialist experience, the Government is prepared to extend similar concessions to applicants for specialist posts previously advertised but which have not as yet been filled. * Transferred by the Minister for Health to the Chief Secretary.

All the vacant specialist posts in the Medical Department will be advertised again using a form of advertisement similar to that used in August.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will give details of the programmes of expansion of existing facilities in the Hospitals; the approximate dates when such expansion programmes will begin; and the approximate dates when such expansion programmes will be completed.

Programmes of expansion of existing facilities in the Hospitals involve: -

asked the Minister for Health whether it is the policy of the Government to inform Medical Officers undergoing training for specialist posts that they have been selected as trainees.

It is not the policy of Government to inform Medical Officers that they have been selected as "trainees".

asked the Minister for Health what steps the Government is taking to assist voluntary bodies to build homes for chronic and convalescent cases now occupying beds in Government Hospitals.

The Government is willing to consider any application from Voluntary Bodies for such assistance and this fact has been made known by the Ministry of Health to four such voluntary agencies.