Hansard, 1956-06-07

If it please you, Sir, I should like to take this last opportunity I have to express the deep appreciation of the Government for the magnificent work done by Dr. Srinivasan and his colleagues on the Malayanisation Commission. It is not usual to make such a statement in the House, Sir, but the work was of considerable complexity and it was magnificently done, and I feel that this tribute is not too much at this time and place. I would like to place on the record how much we appreciate the manner and the speed with which they have done their work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your consent and the assent of this House under Standing Order No. 23 to move under Standing Order No. 7 (11), That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Has the Minister the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members: Aye.

Thank you, Sir. I move, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned sine die.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day the Assembly do stand adjourned sine die.

Order read for resuming adjourned consideration of Amendment to Question [6th June, 1956], "That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London." - (The Chief Minister). Which Amendment was, to leave out all the words from "Assembly", and to insert: "is of the opinion that the offer of Her Majesty's Government should have been accepted by the delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London as an interim measure, in view of the considerable constitutional advancement contained therein and in view of the urgent need to restore a feeling of confidence and stability to the country and to the people." - (Mr Lim Choon Mong).

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I recounted the main points on which the delegation agreed before we went to London and I was coming to the time when the delegation agreed to give the responsibility of external defence and foreign affairs, except for trade and commerce, to the United Kingdom.

Powers.

Sir, arising out of that question, the delegation from Singapore suggested that there should be a Defence and Security Council which should consist of seven members. They would be one representative of the United Kingdom, three representatives of the Armed Forces, the Chief Minister of Singapore, and two other representatives of the Government of Singapore. However, for purposes of bargaining, the numbers were made equal, that is, three from the Government of Singapore and three from the United Kingdom. In addition to the above, the delegation agreed to allow the United Kingdom to have the power of suspending the constitution should internal security deteriorate to such an extent as to affect the efficacy of external defence or should the Government of Singapore act ultra vires the constitution of Singapore. Let us now compare this with what was agreed between the United Kingdom Government and Singapore before the talks broke down. We have read in the papers that the United Kingdom agreed to allow Singapore to double its elected Members - from the present 25 to 50. They further agreed to withdraw from the Legislative Assembly all Nominated Members as well as Official Ministers. On the question of citizenship, the United Kingdom considered the request from Singapore most sympathetically and offered the creation of the State of Singapore with citizens who would enjoy rights similar to that of fully self-governing members of the Commonwealth. Malayanisation of the civil service, in accordance with the Majority Report, was accepted in principle and details concerning this were left in the hands of sub-committees which never met. The points which were not fully agreed upon were the composition of the Defence and Security Council and the powers of legislation by Her Majesty's Government regarding external defence. Here you will see that the bargaining point which the delegation had in mind was turned into a firm stand. A suggestion by the Chief Minister that the Chairman of this Council should be appointed by the United Nations Organisation was not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. Another suggestion made by the PAP that the Chairman should be appointed by the Government of India was not adopted by the delegation. A further suggestion was made by the Labour Front that the Chairman should be appointed by the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Having regard to the fact that the two previous suggestions did not meet with success on the ground that the intervention of a third party in a problem involving joint control by the two governments could not be pushed through, we took the view that this third suggestion would only be turned down and thereby cause further deadlock in the talks. We therefore suggested that, as the problem was one facing Singapore and Britain, it would be easier to find a solution acceptable to both parties if they could, by agreement, nominate a person acceptable to both. We were proved right when the talks broke down on this point. In passing, I must mention the fact that although our suggestion was turned down, we stood by the whole delegation as a solid front when the question was discussed with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We did not prejudice the case put up by the Chief Minister even though we had expressed our feelings at delegation meetings that the chances of reaching agreement with the United Kingdom on this point would be slim. Our attitude has been twisted by the P.A.P. into an anti-Federation stand and later into an anti-Malay stand. This malicious fabrication on the part of the P.A.P. has been done without regard to the evil consequences which can ensue from communal ill-feelings. The public should know how the P.A.P., in order to obtain political gain, was prepared to sacrifice the harmony of the people and the interests of the country. Sowing seeds of communal ill-feelings is a tactic of the Communists, and I call upon the people to open their eyes and be warned against these poison mongers. Now that the talks have failed, we can realise the setback on the constitutional progress of Singapore. It will not be possible for us to have the great constitutional advance which would have been ours by next year. The Rendel Constitution, which was fiercely criticised, is still in force. The Chief Minister put it in London after the talks failed that only lepers would want to stand for election. I wonder what he will think of the present Members sitting in this House. The offer that was made by the United Kingdom was described as a Christmas pudding with arsenic sauce. If that were the case, then the present constitution would be an arsenic cake. It is therefore very interesting to find that the Labour Front has decided to eat this arsenic cake, although a few days ago a Christmas pudding with arsenic sauce was totally unacceptable! Looking at it from all angles, I feel that the breakdown of the talks was not at all done with a sense of realism. In fact, if we compare what we set out to get with what was actually agreed between the delegation and the United Kingdom, we will find that we obtained practically all that we had asked for. In fact, even the P.A.P. leader, who stated publicly that he had gone to London to fight for only 75 per cent Merdeka, was ready to accept it. On the question whether Britain should have the power to suspend the constitution partially as well as totally, he even tried to persuade the Chief Minister that if he was willing to give the power of total suspension to Britain, then logically and legally Britain could use part of the powers given her. However, we were told of a mysterious cable, and then the stand of the P.A.P. became that of a full loaf or none at all. This change of attitude on the part of the P.A.P. leader closed all avenues of retreat to the Chief Minister from the stand taken by him. This, in fact, was the true cause of the failure. Viewing the events in retrospect, I firmly believe that the Chief Minister would have agreed to the proposals by the United Kingdom if only he had thought things over before acting. The frantic bid by the Chief Minister to reopen the talks on his own personal responsibility was ample evidence of this. Singapore spent a large sum of money - in fact, $ 180,000 - on this abortive trip. Stooges of international Communism will, I am sure, welcome the failure so that they can still put up the appearance of fighting colonialism. We, the Liberal-Socialists, are of the opinion that we should have accepted the United Kingdom proposals and then continue negotiating to further limit the powers of Her Majesty's Government on the question of legislation with regard to external defence. It would have been easier for us to come back with 90 per cent Merdeka, work it, and after some time, go back and ask for just one or two more concessions to attain the 100 per cent independence. By that time, we would have raised our own forces for our own defence and the problem of external defence would then be more easily solved. I consider the policy of the P.A.P., as the Hon. Mr Francis Thomas once said, that of a young man in a great hurry. He wants to drive a car at 100 miles per hour through the streets of Tanjong Pagar regardless of the number of people he may have killed. No doubt such a speed will be most spectacular and will hit the headlines - but who will be the sufferers? As far as the Liberal-Socialists are concerned, we adhere to our stand. We view the problem in a practical manner. What we promised we have carried out. We declared that we would fight for a common citizenship for Singapore. We did it. We stated publicly that we wanted to safeguard the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the Press. We wanted to be sure that when Merdeka comes, the safety of the people individually, whether they are young or old, whether they are of one race or another, should be safeguarded. We voiced that for the people of Singapore. All Parties declared at the conference that they were aware of the danger of internal subversion; yet some were prepared, and, in fact, preferred to gamble on it. We fully realise, however, that Singapore is a commercial centre whose prosperity depends upon trade, which can only flourish under stable conditions and feelings of security. Whereas the other Parties voted for the breakdown of the talks, the Liberal-Socialists and the M.C.A. did not favour it -

Abstained!

We were right.

Abstained!

Order.

The talks should never have been broken off. The subsequent correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State embodied in the White Paper, which is the subject of the next motion, seeking to reopen the talks, proved our point. In fact, these letters written by the Chief Minister provide all the justification that is needed for my amendment to the motion. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising to second the amendment, I speak as one who was, of course, not a member of the delegation but was able to follow events perhaps from a more objective angle, or at least from a Singapore angle. First of all, it is as well to recall some of the things which were said and done immediately prior to the opening of the London talks. For example, may I remind the House what the Hon. the Chief Secretary reported to hon. Members in connection with the Kallang mass rally, as memories are sometimes short: "At about 6.40 p.m. the chanting became more excited and a number of youths were seen working up their companions, lobbing pieces of wood, poles and banners at the police who remained steady at their posts. The police had been apprehensive of disorder because of slighting references made to the police at several P.A.P. meetings and because of the campaign in the Press by a large group of so-called Chinese cultural associations and students during the previous two weeks protesting against police refusals to issue licences for the performance of songs and dances of Communist meaning. These organisations held a further protest meeting at the Badminton Hall immediately prior to the mass rally. After it, at about 4 p.m., some 4,000 to 5,000 youths from that meeting marched in an orderly and disciplined manner to the rally. They carried a large banner depicting the Communist dove of peace. When they encountered police officers on duty, there was organised shouting of Merdeka. Their attitude was one of contempt for the police..." Nine days later the Hon. the Chief Minister, in a broadcast before leaving for London, said: "Britain wants Singapore as a prosperous free port serving the commerce of the world. This is the destiny we seek. Britain wants to keep Singapore free from the deadly clutches of Communism. We know that Communism in this mercantile island means death." Four days later, on, I think, the 16th of April, my hon. Friend's first act in London was to address "the blunt truth", as he called it, to Malayan students in a supposedly hush-hush talk. He stated, or so it is reported, that 1959 was the date for the take-over in Singapore by a camouflaged Communist party, and he had warned the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that the latter was inviting Communists into the P.A.P. On the following day he admitted in a Press release: "The main theme of my address was the dangerous attitude of a group in Singapore that is not big enough to overcome their bitterness against colonial rule and talks of throwing the White man out of the colony." On the 22nd of April, on the very eve of the talks, the Member for Tanjong Pagar took his turn in addressing the students, stating: "Our first task is to get rid of the white man." He was quoted as explaining that "the chance of one of his English-educated audience becoming the future prime minister of Malaya was 'extremely slender'." The majority of the Members of this House were away in London, but I can tell them now that the effect which these statements by the P.A.P. leader and by the Chief Minister had on the people of this island, already deeply shaken by the Kallang rally fiasco, was one of considerable concern, coupled with the growing conviction that the maintenance of full and firm internal security transcended almost all other considerations. Could there, therefore, be the least surprise, either in London or in Singapore, that the Secretary of State should state that Her Majesty's Government would undertake to see that this country did not become an outpost of Communism and was not this the logical reply to the Chief Minister's own fears? If this were not so, why should the citizens of this country not have risen up in their wrath on the breakdown of the talks? What has happened to the Hon. the Chief Minister's 167,000 signatories, who are supposed to have wanted his brand of all-or-nothing Merdeka and who, by their silence, have revealed that they do not desire anything of the sort?

You are wrong.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar complained yesterday that British opinion had hardened on the arrival of the delegation in London. The extremism of his own Party no doubt contributed to this hardening just as it had contributed to a similar hardening of opinion in Singapore, namely, towards the view that the internal security of this country must be properly safeguarded. Should it not, therefore, have become clearer, as the days went by, that if Her Majesty's Government's offer on all other major issues was acceptable, we should accept the whole, and was not that, in fact, the view of the hon. Member himself for at least the first half of the talks? The Hon. the Chief Minister complained yesterday that the final differences in viewpoint between the Colonial Office and the delegation were so small that the former should have given in to his demands, but is it not equally arguable that he should have made concessions when so much had already been gained? Is it not nearer the truth that the Chief Minister over-reached himself in the terms he tried to wrest from Her Majesty's Government, and is this not borne out by his subsequent actions after the breakdown of the talks? The truth is that almost everybody knows, including, I sometimes think, the Hon. the Chief Minister himself, that the British offer in its final form should have been accepted as an interim measure. The Nanyang Siang Pau of the 15th of May, I think it was, pointed out that "members of the delegation should have room for mutual toleration and concession and never allow a deadlock, as success could not be achieved all at once; and further, that if the delegates returned with powers of internal self-government, other difficult problems could be reserved for decision later and there was no need to force the issue now." That was the true feeling of Singapore. Those were the views of the village leaders, both Chinese and Malay, in the rural areas of my constituency whom I visited when the breakdown occurred. Indeed, many to whom I spoke went even further. They said that if the Member for Tanjong Pagar really wished to throw out the white man, there would be no Service establishments and no big commercial houses, and consequently no jobs for the considerable number of workers employed by these establishments. On the 15th of April, a week before this expression of extremism, the view of the hon. Member had been more moderate when he said on the eve of his departure for London that the object of the Merdeka Mission was not to secure full independence but 75 per cent self-government with complete self-government after five years. On the 15th of May, a month later, the P.A.P. was to reject the very large measure of self-government offered and to threaten to bring Singapore to an economic and political standstill, thus showing cynicism and an utter lack of principle. With a fully-elected Legislative Assembly; with our own Home Minister and Finance Minister having full control of the police and the revenues of the country; with the details of Malayanisation settled and their implementation well on the way; with a Singapore citizenship established and an electoral roll fully representative of the people; can it not be seen that the complete self-government after five years which the P.A.P. claimed they wanted would, in fact, have been inevitable and very much more of a reality in even less time? Indeed, the Secretary of State promised a review of the working of the Defence and Security Council after two years. In our view, the greatest disservice which the Hon. the Chief Minister, as leader of the delegation, has done to this country is not merely to have rejected this considerable constitutional advance but also to have kept the one and a quarter million citizens of this island in continued doubt and anxiety as to the next turn of events. For far too long have all sections of the community been saying to themselves and to each other, "What is going to happen?" The feeling of uncertainty, of insecurity and of malaise has haunted Singapore for far longer than we can possibly afford. This country is not merely standing still, it is sliding backwards. The Chief Minister's policy, most unfortunately, has seen to it that this position of uncertainty is to continue for some months to come. The Hon. the Chief Minister told the Malayan students in London: "Singapore's economy is so delicately balanced that we survive only by virtue of the activities of capital." His all-or-nothing policy has considerably shaken that balance. His action in accusing the Colonial Secretary of Fascism one day and writing to him the next and pleading for the reopening of the talks in those words - "permit me to express my admiration for your very real abilities" - was hardly a balanced action. Let us not only be honest, Sir, with ourselves in this House but with the people of this country as well, and let us match our own common sense with the sturdy common sense of the majority of Singapore's citizens. And what our joint common sense tells us is this: that 90 per cent internal self-government plus 100 per cent security with which to maintain it is a better proposition today than 100 per cent internal self-government plus only 50 per cent security with which to maintain it. If the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) cares to call me a colonial stooge for stating that proposition, then all I can say is that the bulk of Singapore's population are stooges along with me, if they were given the chance, free from the fear of the sinister propaganda and intimidation which the P.A.P. indulges in, to express their true feelings and convictions. The Hon. the Chief Minister knows very well that the Liberal-Socialist delegates urged him up to the last moment to accept what had been offered and then to go back later for more. He cannot, in any honesty, blame them for his own lack of vision, nor indeed has he done so. The people of Singapore are sick and tired of crises and this amendment reflects their real feelings regarding the totally unnecessary failure of a mission. That is the truth of the matter, and the tragedy. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Hon. the Chief Minister for allowing me to speak first on this amendment. For personal reasons, I will not be able to stay in this House beyond 11 o'clock and I was afraid I would have to leave this Assembly without having answered some of the charges made against me by the leader of the majority Opposition Party, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), and the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). Sir, the People's Action Party, when we left Singapore, issued an official statement - 75 per cent Merdeka. Unlike the Liberal-Socialist Party, when we issue an official statement, we mean what we say. We prepared the ground for an agreement with the Colonial Office on the basis of complete internal self-government in order that we could never be accused either by our supporters or by our enemies of cheating. We fought strenuously in London to achieve this. Whatever differences I had with the Chief Minister were because I tried to keep the basis of discussion on the heads of agreement we had agreed upon before we left Singapore. Our interpretation of the agreement we had arrived at before we left Singapore was complete internal self-government. We wanted self-government. We gave away external affairs and external defence, and we were left with internal self-government. The Member for Serangoon said he urged upon the Chief Minister the illogicality of the stand of the delegation and of the P.A.P. in refusing to offer partial suspension of the constitution when we had, in fact, offered the whole. That, Sir, is a completely malicious misrepresentation of the facts. He knew exactly what our stand was. We went to London on this basis. We did not give away anything. We wanted to ask only for complete internal self-government because we could not have got more, because other members of the delegation, the Liberal-Socialists, would not have agreed. Having asked for internal self-government, it was idle to discuss whether or not Her Majesty's Government had the right to suspend the constitution. There is only one sovereign power in any territory, and as long as we are not independent, that sovereign power is Britain. When we are independent like Ceylon, then the old imperial power is out. When the Ceylonese decided to oust the British bases, there was no question of suspending the constitution because to re-enter Ceylon was an act of aggression. But until we have attained independence, Britain is the sovereign power and we have to accept that position. I agree that if Britain has the power to suspend the whole of the constitution, then, a fortiori, she has the power to suspend part of it. But that is entirely different from saying that I agree to the British having the power to suspend any part of the constitution. There is a fundamental difference in political approach. Sir, for three weeks in London I argued and I argued for a settlement. No one in this House knows better how absolutely vital it was for us to have a settlement if it was possible, but I found in the last week that it was not possible. I found that Britain had decided that she was not going to give us complete internal self-government, that Britain was going to sit in with the learner-driver. Britain wanted an Austin car with dual controls. Britain wanted to be next to the driver. What we said to Britain was, "If you want me to agree to have you sitting in with me, I want one set of controls. The day you take over, I will ostentatiously get out from the driving seat and you can be in supreme control. But I refuse to be your stooge, to be your pawn, like the Liberal-Socialists would have been."

Not at all.

Order.

Of course.

Sir, of all the stupid things that people do, I think this is the stupidest of them all. They did not have the courage in London to say, "I oppose this breakdown. I propose to go on with the talks." Instead they abstained. Abstained from what? Abstained because they neither had the will nor the guts to make up their minds what to do -

Except the Member -

- except the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng). [Interruption.] And now, three weeks after the breakdown, the Member for Serangoon said that we should have accepted the Colonial Office's offer. Sir, I can understand the Hon. Mr Sutherland and I can understand the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). They cannot help themselves. We are all prisoners of our own past, of our upbringing; our mental attitudes are values that we learned as little children. But I find it sad to see the Member for Serangoon - and I think, of the Liberal-Socialists, he is the man who most believes in what he is saying - come forward in this Assembly to be an advocate for the Colonial Office. There is the perfect stooge -

Order, order. We have really been approaching unparliamentary language, but if the word "stooge" is used in direct reference to an hon. Member, then, of course, it is out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, forgive me for the slip, but I could not restrain my natural reaction at seeing one of my own people behaving in a manner completely unbefitting a self-respecting individual. Nehru said that when a colonial power succeeds in making a man think he is a slave, and he thinks like a slave, then the threat of power is no longer necessary, and the supreme achievement of an imperial power in subjugation is achieved. I can understand the Hon. Mr Sutherland and the Member for Tanglin, but I find it difficult to understand the Member for Serangoon. In fact, a lot of Malayan students found it very difficult to understand him. He went to one meeting and said, "We are Liberal-Socialists. Because we believe that the world should be a little bit freer, therefore we are Liberals. Because we believe that employers should give a little bit more to their workers, therefore we are Socialists. Therefore we call ourselves the Liberal-Socialists." Sir, they appeared before the Malayan students in London one Sunday and they never appeared again, although they were invited, because they accused the students of hooliganism. The students there are all idealistic; they asked the Liberal-Socialist leader whether he was prepared to fight and die for freedom, whether be was prepared to go to jail if necessary. He replied, "Do not be silly. All these things are unnecessary. Why should we go to jail for these things? The British are bound to give us these things and all that we have got to do is to wait for the hand-over." Sir, I do not know what to make of these people. They say that this is their Party statement. Therefore I assume that it has received careful deliberation as a statement of policy. It says the P.A.P. is afraid of Merdeka and the P.A.P. have done their very best to achieve their aim of not getting Merdeka by frightening the British. Sir, there is a touch of hallucination about this whole thing which sometimes troubles me in my sleep. I propose now to read from the "Suara Merdeka", the organ of the Malayan students in Britain. I think they must have been troubled in their sleep too. They quote Torch, organ of the Liberal-Socialist Party, which contained the following account of an inaugural meeting for the formation of a Youth Group at a seaside bungalow at Siglap: "It was a fine gathering, healthy young people having a pleasant and enjoyable day. Sport, games and dancing preceded and followed the meeting to elect office-bearers. Unlike the regimented gatherings of the young section of other political Parties, the members spent their time more on play than on business. The organisers of the gathering are to be congratulated for taking an easy attitude towards politics." That is from their Party organ. I quote the comment of the Malayan students in Great Britain: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." Mr Speaker, Sir, any man who subscribes to this amendment of the Liberal-Socialists must be going mad.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon and leader of the Liberal-Socialists in this House, whom I respect as a man who always does seek to be honest and yet is torn between his own personal integrity and his loyalty to his Party caucus, has drawn attention to some of the ingredients of the constitution which the British offered. He and the Member for Tiong Bahru have made some play on the question of citizenship. I think they are conscious of how we of the Labour Front have struggled, with sincerity, with ardour and with tirelessness to get it. I do not think we need say it - it must be plain - that the question of citizenship to us is one of vital importance to Singapore, and I need hardly say that we have the people's sympathy with our domiciled Chinese particularly who are deprived of the right of citizenship. But, Sir, I am one who respects these Chinese and I am certain that they would not ask that the welfare of Singapore should be sacrificed in order that they should have citizenship. I am sure that they themselves would not want, not a 90 per cent Merdeka, but a "busok" Merdeka in order that they should be citizens of the country. Sir, there are good ingredients in what the British offered. May I refer to paragraph 67 of our White Paper in which we openly said so. With some sarcasm, Sir, my description of the constitution has been referred to - the description that it is a Christmas cake with arsenic sauce. A Christmas cake has fine ingredients, just as there were good ingredients in what we were offered, but the whole was a poisonous package. Paragraph 67 of the White Paper says: "On the resumption of the meeting the Chief Minister indicated with deep regret that the otherwise acceptable Constitutional framework proposed by Her Majesty's Government was rendered unacceptable due to the insistence of the over-riding Imperial Legislative Powers and a majority vote on the Defence and Security Council." So it is drawing a red herring, Sir, to refer to some of the ingredients in this offer which were good. The question really is: Were they not completely nullified when it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain complete imperial powers over Singapore which would remain a colony? The Member for Serangoon said we got almost everything we had asked for. May I remind him that we asked for Dominion status? We asked for complete political freedom. At no time did we agree, either here or anywhere else, that Singapore should remain a colony, subject to these day-to-day over-riding imperial powers. The remarkable thing about this amendment of the Member for Serangoon, Sir, the unhappy thing - I cannot speak with anger; I speak in real sorrow - is that I see a man of integrity act in this fashion, but I would ask this gentleman, who today moves an amendment requesting this House to approve the acceptance of the British proposals, how he acted in London. Does he remember, I think it was about 3.30 p.m. on 15th May at the adjournment just before the final break, I said, "Is there anybody present in favour of the British proposals?" Not one hand was raised. "Those against?" Nine hands were raised. And I said, "You, you, and you?" "Abstain", came the answers. I do not know what "abstain" means. To me it is an act of cowardice for a representative of the people in any matter that is before the House or with which he is entrusted. There are circumstances, Sir, where one must abstain - I mean in special circumstances - for example, in the next motion, if there is to be an amendment to censure me, quite naturally I must abstain from voting because it affects my personal interests; but to abstain on a matter of such vital importance to the welfare of the country - ! In any case, Sir, they abstained - three of them. They had the right to - these gentlemen who abstained and who today ask you to believe that they acted wrongly in abstaining, that they should have accepted it. How did these gentlemen react when two days later I sought to reopen the talks on a far more advantageous basis for Singapore? Did they support me?

I will tell you later.

But the point is that I was informed by the Member for Serangoon, "Sorry. We are not interested in reopening the negotiations. My Party in Singapore is finalising arrangements to take over the government."

Nonsense!

To me personally, at the B.B.C. So, Sir, these people who were not prepared to accept the British proposals on the 15th of May, these Members who were not prepared to support my efforts to reopen the negotiations on the night of the 16th and the morning of the 17th of May - as the hon. Member said, we shall be coming to that in the next motion - these very people said we should have accepted it. Why the change? I can only say this, Sir. This is an effort to understand - that the Liberal-Socialists sent their more honest representatives to London; but now that these representatives consider themselves subject to the party caucus and have to take party directions, they find themselves in the humiliating and unhappy position of moving an amendment that censures their own conduct. If the day ever comes when this Assembly is ruled by party caucus, decisions outside this Assembly, then democracy walks right out of the door, Sir. When a man of personal integrity has to give way to party directions, democracy ceases to be a reality. I think that for myself I can only deeply regret that hon. Members of this House and men whom I had the pleasure of working with in London - because, let me repeat, that from the Liberal-Socialists in London I received patient support, even though at times they were at variance with my views; I learned to admire them, members who were with me in the delegation - and it is with genuine sorrow that I see them stand up in discussion to destroy that integrity before the public and to destroy, to, some extent, the dignity of Members of this House by moving an amendment that censures their own conduct in London.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister, so audaciously brought by the Member for Serangoon - the so-called leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party delegation in London. I would like to remind him and his colleague the Member for Tanglin, who seconded the amendment, that it was their Party alone who in this House, when the question of self-government was first discussed, were the ones who asked for immediate independence.

The lion roars!.

The lion has roared and is still trying to roar. I will read now from our Hansard of what happened on that occasion (Official Report, Vol. 1, No. 8, dated 25th July, 1955). This is what the Member for Paya Lebar said: "Let us therefore play the game, (if they can) and ask for a full transfer of power so that we, and we alone, shall be responsible for our own affairs and destiny and the British Government need no longer be answerable for us. In accordance with the principles which I have stated, I therefore move an amendment which will not only be in line with the first and second parts of this motion, but also remove all future occasions for dissatisfaction. I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding the following . . . 'And that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for a transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore, and that a new constitution providing for independence should be granted immediately.'" I hope the Member for Serangoon and his colleague the Member for Tanglin appreciate the significance of that. We are, of course, quite accustomed, both in this House and outside it, to witness the farcical gymnastic somersaults which the now defunct Progressive Party (absorbed by the Lion Party) and the newly-born Liberal-Socialist Party have made and continue to make. It is, of course, understandable for the Member for Tanglin to second this amendment. I can also understand what he represents in more ways than one. Before the delegation left for London, the Member for Tanglin, on behalf of the Liberal-Socialists, changed the whole original attitude of his Party, which had asked for immediate independence, by seeking certain reservations for Her Majesty's Government and safeguards on the internal security problem, but the All-Party Delegation started from Singapore unanimous in the call for Merdeka. In London, before the conference was opened, it was agreed by all delegates that, if any differences of opinion arose in the course of discussions, a 15-minute adjournment be asked for, so that we could iron out any differences amongst ourselves in the committee rooms that were supplied to us, so as not to disclose any discord. Furthermore, the Liberal-Socialist Party agreed that on the question of internal security they would voice their opinion only when the question arose. But in spite of this, at the opening speeches of the conference, the leader of the Liberal-Socialists made a most puerile statement, which he no doubt had already prepared in Singapore, proclaiming his Party's platform on the question of internal security. The Hon. the Chief Minister kindly referred to the speech as ill-timed or ill-chosen, but my own view is that not only was it ill-timed and ill-chosen, but it immediately signified to Her Majesty's Government, before any matters could be discussed, that there was discord amongst the members of the delegation, and without wishing to breach any confidence, my view was upheld by a member of the Liberal-Socialist Party - and that was not the Member for Changi. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar is right in his opinion that the people of Britain and Her Majesty's Government had before our arrival hardened against the request for Merdeka, did this opening speech of the leader of the Liberal-Socialists, which clearly intimated to Her Majesty's Government that his Party was ready to accept any crumbs that fell from the Colonial Office table, not lend further fortification to the British attitude?

Quote what I said.

The Liberal-Socialists, I suppose by this opening speech, hoped to gain favour with Her Majesty's Government and to be looked upon as the blue-eyed baby. The Colonial Secretary, who is a most astute man (as we all know), subsequently invited members of all Parties separately and individually either to lunch or some other entertainment, where, no doubt, he was able to assess the different views of the Parties. It was a common sight to see at social functions, to which all delegates were invited, members of the Liberal-Socialist Party buttonholing the bigwigs of the Colonial Office, or any of the members who sat on the opposite side of the table at the conference -

Ask the Chief Minister.

- and on occasions I overheard their conversations which were always entirely related to "What our Party platform is and what we can do for Singapore." It is therefore understandable that the Member for Changi became so disgusted with party politics - and I have no doubt he meant his own party politics - that he has now openly declared to be independent. The vicious remarks made by the Member for Tiong Bahru attacking the Hon. the Chief Minister were unjustified and unkind. In fairness to the P.A.P., so were his attacks against them. I can only advise this hon. Member to remove the mote from his eye and the mote from his colleagues before making any uncharitable attacks. [Interruption.]

Order.

I had originally no intention to speak. The White Paper was prepared by this Government and has the unanimous approval of all Ministers. But the uncalled-for criticisms made by the Member for Tiong Bahru, when no one else before him had attacked anyone at all - in point of fact, the Chief Minister's remarks of the Liberal-Socialists were most kind - and this audacious attempt to negative the Hon. the Chief Minister's motion makes it incumbent upon me to speak. I therefore oppose this amendment which strikes me as another political stunt of the Liberal-Socialists to find favour with some people in Singapore and the Colonial Office, and I think no decent-minded member of the All-Party Delegation could support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, like the meetings of that institution in Bukit Timah Road, commonly known as the race course, the sittings of this Assembly are not void of their moments of upset. Also like the "dark horses" of whose performance one is never sure until it is all over, so it is with certain Members of this House - only here they are called by more dignified names. Sir, my friend and colleague the Minister for Health has just now quoted from Hansard - he has stolen a march on me - showing that it was these so-called champions of the people who were shocked at the idea of having self-government in four years and who wanted immediate independence. It was the leader of these champions, Sir, who today stood up and advocated that we should have accepted - accepted what? - accepted complete independence? No, Sir. Accepted even clean internal self-government? No, Sir. He advocated that we should have accepted something that no hon. Member could have accepted.

- to hell.

Order, order. Will the hon. Member please repeat what he has just said?

" - to hell."

Did I hear the hon. Member say, "Go to hell"?

I said "Road to hell".

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. [Interruption.] Order, order. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon, leader of the Socialists, who are also Liberals at the same time, is censuring us today for not having accepted an unworkable compromise; for having principles and sticking by them; and for not fooling the people of Singapore with something that is but a shadow and has no substance. Yesterday he told us that it did not matter if we did not have the trimmings so long as we had the substance, that "it does not matter if we do not have the tomatoes, the lettuce and the salad so long as we have the chicken." Sir, there are times when the chicken without the trimmings is unpalatable, and there are times when such a substance - if he thinks it is a substance - would make the body politic sick. It is better not to have it without the trimmings.

Yes, like Ministers' posts.

But, Sir, I still say that he was mistaken. It is not the substance that we were getting but rather the trimmings. The hon. Member with his tongue in his cheek talks of stability. "Restore the feeling of confidence and stability," he says. Does he not realise that that is exactly what we wanted; that is exactly why we refused to accept -

Ha, ha!

Order, please. I think hon. Members on the Opposition side are entitled to reasonable interruptions. I have allowed interruptions on both sides of the House, but when they become unseemly, I must intervene. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.

Sir, if we had accepted the Colonial Office's proposals, it would have led to greater instability. Agitators would have been able to use the excuse of, "the sword that is always hanging over our heads" to arouse passions, to commit murder and arson and to arouse racial antagonism. That is what we wanted to prevent and that is why we refused to accept a dishonourable compromise. Would we have got this stability? I say we would not, unless we had a proper constitution where our principles would not have been sacrificed, and where the people of Singapore could have understood that they had got "something clean" - in the words of the Chief Minister. It is like a healthy person having a thorn in his foot. That thorn acts as an irritant and the mere presence of that source of irritation is enough to put him in an unstable frame of mind. It is better to be sick, as we are today under colonial rule, and fight on for independence rather than have a thorn in the flesh and feel irritable all the time. Sir, yesterday we heard a series of speakers on the post-mortem of the Merdeka talks and the reasons why they failed. "The British were in no mood to give away further concessions to the colony; there was dissension among the delegates themselves; the Colonial Office was adamant." I ask, Sir, why was the Colonial Office adamant? Because they knew that there was one weak link in the chain of the delegation, They knew that that one weak link was ready to come to any compromise, whether honourable or not. They knew that that one weak link did not have the same desire for independence as the others had.

Refer to the Chief Minister's remarks.

Knowing all this, Sir, do you not think that it is likely that a people, well seasoned in politics like the British are, would not have taken advantage at once of that weakness of ours? Sir, that is one more major reason why the delegation failed to obtain success. Sir, the Member for Tanglin stated that he was able to follow from here events with a more objective angle, rather a Singapore angle. It is likely that he followed the events as presented to the public by the British Press, which everybody knows is not unbiased - to be very mild about it. Sir, he also asked what had happened to those 167,000 Merdeka signatures of the Chief Minister - mind you, of the Chief Minister; they had no share in it. Why were they silent when we did not get Merdeka? Sir, that is the trouble. These gentlemen on the opposite benches - the Liberal-Socialists - are not in touch with the masses. They do not realise the amount of effort that has gone into keeping the lid on, to prevent it from blowing up. They do not know what has been going on behind the scenes, because they are not in touch with the masses. If they had known, if they had been in contact with the masses, they would have realised that it is very dangerous to touch on this subject. If this is taken as a challenge, what is going to happen tomorrow? Then they will be held to blame. Sir, in closing, I would like to say that yesterday the Member for Tanjong Pagar, in one of his most balanced speeches - so it appeared to me - pointed out that the right path now lay towards a united, non-Communist national movement. That, Sir, is the reaction of many right-minded people today after the failure of the talks; and the failure of the talks is already acting as an incentive towards such a movement, driving to the side party squabbles and party politics, except perhaps for a few un-national-minded people. With such a strong and united national movement, Merdeka cannot be refused and I hope, Sir, that the day will not be far off when, in the words of the Member for Changi, we will be able to sink all party differences and unite in a national movement for independence - and I do not expect certain Members in this House will take part in it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Liberal-Socialist Party has a certain political immaturity. To put it rather more simply, they are sometimes rather silly. You can rely on them always not only to do the wrong thing, but if it is possible, to do it in the wrong way and at the wrong time. I spent some time last night thinking over this amendment which they have moved and trying to see what public advantage or what party advantage they could hope to reap from it. I find it quite in vain to attempt to understand either their motives or their objectives. The only conclusion that I can come to for the moving of this amendment is that their traditional political un-wisdom has once again dominated their political common sense. This amendment is politically unwise for Singapore. It is even politically unwise for the Liberal-Socialist Party, and I am afraid they must have noted with considerable dismay this morning that the Straits Times devoted a very lengthy leading article to saying how politically unwise they had been in moving it. I really feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it would be a great pity if we spent very much longer in debating this amendment. I have been looking at my Standing Orders. I do not think that we, at least, wish to abuse the rules of the Assembly or infringe the rights of the minority, but from a purely humanitarian motive of pity for the Liberal-Socialists, I suggest that we might consider moving that the question be now put and we get this amendment out of the way. If they like, they may move it themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment proposed by the Liberal-Socialist Party does not take me by surprise. In a statement last week I said that the Liberal-Socialists were collaborators of colonialism. Some friends then told me that I was being unfair to the Liberal-Socialists. The amendment proposed by the Liberal-Socialists proves that I was not mistaken. The refusal of the British Government to agree to the minimum demands of the people of Singapore caused the breakdown of the talks. At this time it is more than ever necessary that all Parties in Singapore should close their ranks and unitedly press for the minimum workers' demands of the people of Singapore. This unity of all anti-colonial forces is the only way in which the political aspirations of the people can be advanced. But it is just at this time that the Liberal-Socialist Party choose to echo the line of the Hon. Mr Sutherland -

Point of order, Sir. The word "lie" - is that parliamentary, Sir?

Line, Sir. L-i-n-e.

Order, order. What is your point of order, Mr Sutherland?

I understood the hon. Member to say, "echo the lie". An hon. Member: "Line".

Oh, I beg your pardon.

He is a member of the Colonial Office!

I accept that!

- and this line was against the delegation of Singapore because Mr Sutherland refused to allow Mr Lennox-Boyd -

Order, order. The hon. Member must remember to address his remarks to the Chair. I cannot hear what he is saying.

Mr Sutherland refused to be party to the censure of what he calls his country's Colonial Office. This can be forgiven. He is, after all, an hon. Member of the opposite camp. But now the Liberal-Socialists also refuse to be party to the censure of the Colonial Office for rejecting the minimum demands of the people of Singapore. They go further. They are prepared to censure the delegation of the people of Singapore. This is something which cannot be forgiven by the people of Singapore. This Party proves once again that a change of name does not mean a change of quality. The old Progressive Party, composed of the "yes" men of colonialism, and the not so old Democrat Party, composed of reactionary local capitalist elements, together thought that they could fool the public if they called themselves by a new name - the Liberal-Socialists. The donkey tried to pretend that it was a horse. But this amendment proves once again and for all time that this Party is neither Liberal nor Socialist. If they are honest with themselves and with the people, they will call themselves by their correct name - the Colonial Collaborators Party. To accept -

Not the Communist Party.

To accept the British Government's offer would have been a betrayal of the people of Singapore. It would have meant acceptance of the British Government's right to interfere in almost every aspect of public life. It would have meant recognising British policemen as the backseat drivers of Singapore. The Liberal-Socialists have lost confidence in the people of Singapore. The outstanding characteristic of this Party is its fear of the people of Singapore. They can only be happy if there are British policemen to protect them against their own people. We say that if we are fit for independence, we are also fit to be our own policemen. We say this because we have confidence in our own people and are not afraid of them. Only the spineless members of the Liberal-Socialist Party are afraid of their own people and require foreign policemen to protect them. I therefore ask this Assembly to throw out this amendment, just as the people of Singapore will one day throw the Liberal-Socialists out of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the best to speak on the subject would have been the delegates who attended the constitutional conference and I had originally no desire to speak at all, but I now feel that the debate has become rather unhealthy once it gets to personal affairs or party politics. I ask the Members who are sitting in this House what constitution they are working, and why they are still clinging to it? Who were the originators of this constitution? It was the Progressive Party, but I was then not a member of the Party, and credit must be given to those who have been instrumental in your being in this Assembly and getting more elected representatives here. It is therefore very ungrateful of those, even though they may possibly have advanced politically, to speak in such terms. Although I am speaking on the amendment, I will also deal with the delegation because it was an All-Party Delegation that went to London. Why an All-Party Delegation? Was it an All-Party Government? No. The reason why the Liberal-Socialists consented to go to London was because they wanted to help in the talks for independence. The Labour Front Coalition knew that they did not have an elected majority on their side. If they went to London alone, they would not be received. In the interests of the people, therefore, the Liberal-Socialists consented to go. Sir, the policy of the Liberal-Socialists is to attain, if possible, immediate independence, and if it is not possible, then step by step. What is wrong with that? I ask you, Sir, which country has been able to obtain independence after a struggle of four or five or even ten years? Name me one country. Here we have the P.A.P. quoting Mr Nehru and India.

What about the Federation?

Please stop interrupting!

Order, I am in charge here.

Sir, I do not want to be disturbed.

Order. If an hon. Member is interrupted, his remedy is to appeal to the Chair and not shout across the Chamber in an ungentlemanly manner.

Personally, Sir, I have not disturbed anyone. You might have noticed that, Sir, and I feel that I should be given the same right not to be disturbed. Sir, India had to carry her fight for independence for 80 to 90 years. Here we have a Member who always quotes Mr Nehru. I think he has studied Mr Nehru and India in theory but not in practical politics at all. India, Ceylon and even Burma have attained independence after a lot of suffering. The people of this country have not suffered, and I hope they will not. Things have changed. The people of India accepted constitutional advancement by interim stages. Not only that, but they consented to divide the country into two parts - India and Pakistan. We also have an example in Palestine. When the delegation went as an All Parry Delegation to London, we heard of quarrels and dissensions within the delegation. But the Chief Minister said that they presented a united front at the conference table. I am very happy to hear that. But when a certain stage was reached in the negotiations where neither side would give way at all, it was wise - I would say, very wise - on our part, remembering that Singapore is only 226 square miles in area and having a population of just over a million people, to have taken the maximum offer from the Colonial Office and to work for more later. What was wrong with it, I ask you, Sir? We have accepted the Rendel Constitution. Those Members who oppose it are still sitting tight in their places. They do not want to leave. But in other countries, Sir, if any political party or members of any political party do not agree with the constitution, they immediately resign and ask for fresh elections. They will not work that constitution. But here I see those Members who say they do not want the constitution but are still sticking to it. What for? Are they sincere themselves? If they were, they would have resigned, especially after the Merdeka talks. Sir, my argument is that our movement for independence is only in its infancy. It is a postwar period movement. In 1948 we had only six elected representatives. After that, we had nine. Now we have 25. Had not the London talks broken down, we would have got 50 seats - all elected. Then we could have asked for fresh elections, ascertained the majority opinion on Merdeka, and go back to London and ask for more concessions. I think it would have been sensible of the delegation to accept the maximum offer of the Colonial Office. It would have meant a definite constitutional advancement in our constitutional rights. P.A.P. - if we trace the history of this Assembly, what have they done? It is supposed to be an extremist Party. Before going to London, they said, "We want to accept 75 per cent Merdeka." Why? If they wanted freedom, then why be satisfied with 75 per cent Merdeka? If the Colonial Office's offer had been accepted, then we would have got citizenship rights. Some people would have got voting rights and would have a hand in electing people to this Assembly. Sir, a distinction was made out between the colonial power and the British people. I cannot understand the distinction at all. It is the British people who elect their representatives to Parliament. The Government is formed by the majority party. Then the Cabinet, or the various departments, run the government. What is the opinion of the Colonial Office is the opinion of the British Cabinet, and is the opinion of the British people. It is quite inseparable. Do not forget that the British people elect their representatives to Parliament and Parliament is their voice. There is no distinction at all. It is no use saying that once we have elected them, we do not believe in them. It is impossible. Sir, as I have said, no country had immediate independence and I feel that the maximum offer of the Colonial Office should have been accepted and we would then have been better off, in the interests of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today I rise to speak as an independent nationalist. I am speaking on the amendment which is associated with the Party to which I once belonged. Sir, I think the House knows that I was the Member who, during the last day of the London talks, moved a 15-minute adjournment to allow the delegation to have a private discussion. During that adjournment I proposed that we should accept the British offer under protest. I pointed out to the delegates at this meeting that we must admit that there was already a significant advancement in our constitution if the British offer was accepted, especially as the Colonial Office had recognised the principle of Malayanisation and agreed to hand over control of the police force to us. I said the delegation should realise the fact that the British offer would not completely satisfy the actual wants of the people of Singapore and that we must go back and tell the people the truth - that we could not get what we wanted and what we bad promised during our Merdeka Week. At the same time, we would ask all Parties to sign a joint undertaking that no political Party in power would allow Her Majesty's Government over-riding powers to intervene in any minor issue, since it was declared by the Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd, that the British Government were concerned only with external affairs and external defence. We knew very well that the Colonial Office were trying all the time to take over control of internal security in the name of external defence and external affairs. I said I hoped that all Parties would agree to sign a joint undertaking and let the Colonial Office know that they had unanimously agreed that the British Government should not intervene in any minor issue of internal administration. I even went to the extent of urging the delegation to cable back to Singapore to cancel the arrangements which I understood were under way to welcome the Merdeka Mission back from London; that we should protest to the British Colonial Office for dishonouring their promise made last December to the Hon. the Chief Minister that they would allow us to enjoy a certain status that is more than internal self-government, something that is nearer to Dominion status. I think we can get this information from the White Paper. From the first day of the conference meetings, we already could feel that the Colonial Office were not sincere in keeping their promise. The Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd, in his opening speech at the conference, stated that the British Government did not want Singapore to become an outpost of Peking, or even a colony of Peking. That was not true, because through my personal connections with several Members of Parliament and some Government departments, I was privately told that Mr Lennox-Boyd knew that the Chinese Government in Peking had no intention of coming into South-East Asia, which, of course, includes Malaya and Singapore. I think Mr Lennox-Boyd purposely emphasised that possibility in his speech. I think the Hon. the Chief Minister can still remember how I felt. I thought that since we conceded control over external affairs to Her Majesty's Government, what then would be the position when the question arose of Singapore's admission into the United Nations Organisation? I was so innocent! I was so optimistic, because I was even thinking of Singapore's admission into the United Nations Organisation! But after Mr Lennox Boyd's speech, all my hopes were dashed to the ground; I became so pessimistic. I think the local Press reported it. But I must admit that we had achieved something up to that stage. So I proposed that 15-minute adjournment in order to urge upon the delegation to be a little bit more realistic. I did not agree with the Chief Minister when he said that it would not be good to eat a poisoned cake. The Labour Front's platform is to work the Rendel Constitution for four years - the then Progressive Party, ten years - and yet, after a year's working, we could ask for a significant constitutional advance. Therefore, why should we not devote time to trying out the new Lennox-Boyd constitution? We could come back from London and tell the people that we could not get what we wanted - immediate independence - but we could tell them that the British Government had promised to review the position after two years' working of the new constitution. We could then educate our people and reorganise our nationalist movement for independence. Maybe in one year, maybe in six months, we could get Dominion status. That was what I told the delegation, but my proposal did not have a seconder, not even from my colleagues! [Interruption.] No, I am speaking now as -

Order, please. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair, and there cannot be any asides with Members on the right.

I am sorry, Sir. Then we came to the voting. The voting was most harmful to me. Now many people call me a lost political trustee. "Lim Cher Kheng is bribed by David Marshall for $100,000!" So my proposal was turned down, first, because I did not even have a seconder, and, secondly, I did not have any chance for a fair voting because the leader of the delegation, the Chief Minister, said the talks must break down. We all knew the procedure at these delegation meetings. If all Parties agreed, then the leader of the delegation could go back and tell Mr Lennox Boyd, "All the delegates agree. This is our stand." But if a certain delegate abstained or spoke against the matter under discussion, I do not think the Chief Minister could go back and tell Mr Lennox-Boyd that the delegates had agreed. Although there would be a majority decision, the British Government and the whole world would know that there were certain members in the delegation who had disagreed with the leader of the Merdeka Mission. At the delegation meetings I never regarded the Chief Minister as the leader of the Labour Front. I regarded him as the leader of the people of Singapore. I can let Mr Marshall down, but I cannot let the people of Singapore down. For the dignity of the people of Singapore, I said, "David, I am with you!" And even today I maintain that I was right. Therefore I find that I have no grounds for supporting this amendment.

Sir, this is indeed a frightening amendment, frightening in the sense that it implies that the country and the people have suffered the loss of a good deal of confidence and stability, and because it further implies that the people should be aware of the true state of affairs. Sir, the people of Singapore, as far as I know, understood fully the contents of the recommendations made by the delegation at the London conference and the reasons for its failure, and I cannot see any reason why anybody should go and frighten them by saying, "Look, you have lost a lot of confidence. We have no stability in this country and we should do something about it." Therefore, I feel, Sir, that the keynote of this amendment is absolute fear in the mind of the mover, and if anybody supports it, he is also afraid. To me, Sir, if I want to fight for freedom from slavery and to achieve political emancipation, I should have to fight to get rid of fear. I should be free from fear; and that is the main thing to tell the people - that if we are going to fight for freedom, we must rid our minds of fear. Sir, I think that the Liberal-Socialist Party is misleading the people by frightening them. They feel that if freedom comes to us politically, capital will fly away; individual liberty will fly away and there will be nothing left for the people. This stand is absolutely untrue and if this propaganda of fear goes on in the minds of the people, the Party will be doing a great disservice to the future generation. I feel that the people should be taught that the first thing to achieve is freedom from fear, and by the guidance of the political Parties - guidance in the right direction - we shall be in a position to educate the people to achieve freedom, a freedom which we all would like to have. As I see it, Sir, the reason for failure of the talks in London was on a fundamentally basic issue - the issue whether Singapore is to be granted complete internal self-government, or whether the internal administration should be a mixed administration of the United Kingdom Government and that of Singapore. As far as I am concerned, Sir, the delegation as a whole had shown to the people and the Government of Britain that the people of Singapore were not prepared to accept a mixed internal self-government. The people of Singapore want a self-government through which they can attain complete freedom from political rule, and to me this is the right step for them to take in order to achieve a feeling of confidence and stability. On the other hand, the United Kingdom Government have one point in their mind. The international problem confronting Britain is so top-heavy that they could not even accede to a discussion on internal problems. But the urge of the people of Singapore and the will of the people of Singapore, demonstrated to the United Kingdom through a resolution approved by the Assembly, were reasons that prompted the United Kingdom to open this discussion. It has now been established beyond all doubt that the Singapore delegation had been exceptionally smart in winning for the people of Singapore a just solution. It may be incomplete, but I feel that we should not take that too seriously. We have made a beginning and if we are sincere and honest with the people of Singapore, not in the distant future but in the near future, we will be able to attain the freedom that we are anxious to get. Sir, this amendment will mislead the people. It will confuse them to such an extent that they will not be able to know what this Assembly want, and what the Government want. On those grounds, I feel that it is completely irrelevant to the whole question of our fight for freedom, and I oppose the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the big arm of the Liberal-Socialists represented here were members of the now defunct Progressive Party. May they rest in peace! During the seven years that the Progressive Party held sway in the Legislative Council before the coming into force of the Rendel Constitution, they were wont to bask in the glory of their colonial masters, so much so that the verdict of the public during the last general election was clear - the Progressive Party could be trusted no more. Hence the defeat of all their stalwarts. I thought they had learnt their mistakes when they merged with the Democratic Party and gave birth to that strange and incomprehensible product - the Liberal-Socialist Party. The public, however, Sir, has not been taken in by this change of front, which is nothing but a sham to hoodwink the electorate. By their antics, they have disclosed their true colours. I find it very difficult to understand their political ideology, because they are neither Liberals nor Socialists. When the Member for Serangoon was speaking yesterday, I stood up on a point of clarification. He said, with his, chest out and in a loud voice, "We've got citizenship." I stood up and asked him whom he meant by "we", and I was glad to hear then that he meant the whole delegation.

We were asking what our demands were.

Why should I seek clarification -

Order. Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Why should I seek clarification on this point, Sir? Because when we were in London in the midst of our Merdeka talks, news was received from Singapore that the Liberal-Socialists fought and won citizenship rights for the people of Singapore and this, Sir, is what was meant by the Member for Changi - no longer a Liberal-Socialist - when he said that the All-Party Delegation in London were playing party politics. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister, in moving his substantive motion yesterday, endeavoured to give the Liberal-Socialists a political lift in the estimation of the public, and even the representatives of the P.A.P. - who are most violent in their criticism of the Liberal-Socialists - in their speeches yesterday had no ill-feelings towards them. Why were these friendly overtures made to the Member for Serangoon who, I believe now, must have been mesmerised by the leader of the P.A.P. who said that the man must be getting mad? Why did we make these friendly overtures to the Liberal-Socialists, Sir? It is because we believe, and believe rightly, that we now must have a common, united, non-Communist front if the next delegation going to London to resume the fight for freedom were to succeed. We believe that success could only be attained if we could speak from a position of strength. If, Sir, they had any political acumen, they would have cashed in on these friendly overtures and thereby draw strength from us for the battle that is to come. But what do we see? We see the ridiculous spectacle of a political Party, which claims to fight for the inalienable rights of the people of Singapore, crumbling just because the Colonial Office had applied the whip, and now they are prepared to debase the dignity of the people of Singapore by saying that the delegation should have accepted the offer of Her Majesty's Government. Did the representatives of the Liberal-Socialists express such an opinion in London? They did not. When the fateful question was put to them whether or not the delegation should accept the offer of Her Majesty's Government, they abstained from voting, Sir.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was at the meeting -

What is the hon. Member's point of order? Is it a point of order?

Yes.

Will the hon. Member indicate his point of order?

Contrary to what the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock) said, the actual question the Chief Minister put to the delegation during the 15-minute adjournment was, "Anyone in favour of the breakdown of the talks?" That was the question asked, and I made an appeal, 1 told the Chief Minister of the consequences -

Order. Will the hon. Member come to his point of order and not make a speech?

Sir, the statement that the Minister for Labour and Welfare has made to this House is all wrong.

That is not a point of order.

Sir, I have said on many occasions and I say it again that the English language is indeed a difficult language! I said they abstained. They really abstained, whatever the question was. "Do you agree with our stand?" "Abstain." If they wished to accept the British offer, they could have said, "We are against." But, no, they abstained, because at that time they did not have the courage of their convictions, or maybe at that time they were not yet so repentant as they are now since they came back to Singapore. Three of them abstained, but the fourth representative - the Member for Changi - was so fed up to the teeth with them that he openly declared yesterday, "I do not want party politics any more. I declare myself an independent." And he dissociated himself from membership of a Party that is neither Liberal nor Socialist. In London, Sir, they said one thing and now in Singapore they say another, and yet the Member for Tanglin talked of cynicism and political dishonesty! Can he please tell me how he would describe the behaviour of his own Party members when in London they said they abstained and today here they say the delegation should have accepted?

Absolutely correct!

All right, all right! Therefore I would say, if I may, to the people of Singapore, "Oh people of Singapore, punish them not for what they do, because they know not what they do!" Sir, let us now examine the cause of this amendment, which is yet another change of front. In London, when there was an indication of a possible breakdown in the talks, we received news from Singapore that the Liberal-Socialists were so brazen-faced as to announce that they were willing and prepared to take over the government!

My god!

Order.

The news, Sir, did not cause us any consternation. In fact, it gave us a lot of amusement -

And disgust.

And now, Sir, we are again being amused by their moving their amendment. Yesterday the Chief Minister declared that at the end of this sitting he would resign. "Ah, ha! Now is the time to make another bid." And up jumped the leader of the Liberal-Socialists who said that we should have accepted the offer of Her Majesty's Government. Why, oh why in the name of political integrity did they not say such a thing in London? Why did they abstain and now say that they want it? Sir, I really give up! Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 18; Abstentions, 5. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Abdul Hamid Bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Jumabhoy, R. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Lim Choon Mong Braga, A. J. Sutherland, G. A. P. Chew Swee Kee. Tan, William. Goh Chew Chua. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Abstentions Butterfield, C. H. Goode, W. A. C. Absent Hart, T. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Koon Teck. Lee Choon Eng Wong Foo Nam. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. Original Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House, That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London. The alternative is to approve the stand taken by the British Government at the talks and this stand was the insistence by the British Government that it wanted control over internal security, that it wanted over-riding powers to legislate over the heads of the elected representatives of the people and that it wanted the right to interfere in almost every aspect of public life in the name of safeguarding its external defence interests. This stand of the British Government went right against their own professions with regard to the future of Singapore. It is difficult for me to see, Sir, how any genuine representative of the people of Singapore can fail to condemn the stand taken by the British Government during the talks; and what about the stand taken by the Singapore delegation? Foreign observers were surprised by the modesty of Singapore's claims. What our delegation asked for did not amount to independence. They only asked for complete self-government and conceded to Britain the right to control external defence and foreign affairs. Even these modest ambitions were frustrated by the attitude of the British Government; perhaps our modesty was our main enemy. The response of colonialism to modesty had been arrogant. It has been so in other colonial territories. However, the attitude of the British Government has achieved one thing. It has brought about a growing realisation on the part of the people of Singapore that the unity of all anti-colonial forces is essential. It has strengthened the people in their determination to bring colonialism to an early end. The English language Press and interested elements have been trying to put the blame for the failure of the talks on our Chief Minister. I say to this, Sir, "It is utter rubbish." The Hon. the Chief Minister has proved loyal to the mandate of the All-Party Delegation right to the end. It is, of course, in the interest of the Colonial Office and its henchmen that they should pretend to be innocent in trying to put the blame on others. I am sure that this Assembly by voting for the motion before the House will give the lie to the cheap and dishonest propaganda carried on against the Hon. the Chief Minister by the English Press. It is a tribute to the patience and reasonableness of the people of Singapore who took the breakdown with calmness. The attitude of the British Government has aroused more contempt for Britain than anger against her; contempt, because she is so slow in learning the lessons of history; contempt, because at a time when colonialism is on its last legs everywhere, she thinks she can maintain her law - a fortress of colonialism in the resurgence of Asian nationalism - and contempt for those who only learn their lessons too late. The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

In reply, Sir. I would like to deal, Sir, with a few points that have arisen in this debate and I shall start with Mr Sutherland. He referred yesterday, Sir, to the threat of Communism as being one of the reasons why we should have conceded this day-to-day foreign control over internal security. Now, Sir, I would ask him this: does he really believe that colonialism can fight Communism, that colonialism can keep out Communism and that imperial bayonets and bullets do keep out Communism? For more than a decade in this very territory, Sir - which is a colonial territory - and our sister territory across the Straits, which is a colonial territory, we have seen Communism flourish and thumb its nose at the bayonets and the bullets of imperialism. It feeds on colonialism. The existence of colonialism makes it possible for Communism to thrive. It is because we ourselves feel very strongly about the Communist threat that we have refused to make ourselves partners to this fraud upon the people in the continuation of colonial rule; that we have sought a position of stability, of political freedom; that we have got to be masters in our own house and, as masters in our own house, meet the threat of destruction from within. Sir, I have spoken these words before and they may well fall on deaf ears; if he would permit me to quote, and I trust he will listen with respect to some words of the President of the United States of America delivered on the 25th of May, 1956 - only 13 days ago - I shall trouble the House, Sir, with a few paragraphs which are interesting and worthwhile: "Today a militant aggressive Communist doctrine is dominant over much of the world's surface and over hundreds of millions of the world's people. In the postwar period, we have seen it indulged in a particular cynical type of colonialism (he is not referring to the Colonial Office) expressed in the Communist subjugation of once free and proud nations in Europe and Asia. Simultaneously, in the free areas of the world, 600 million people in more than a score of new countries have achieved independence. Communism denies a spiritual premise on which education has been based. According to that doctrine there is no God, there is no soul in man; there is no reward beyond the satisfaction of daily needs. Consequently, for the human being, Communism is cruel, intolerant, atheistic. This doctrine, committed to conquest by lure, intimidation and force, seeks to destroy the political concepts and institutions that we hold to be dearer than life itself. Thus Communism poses a threat from which even this mighty nation is not wholly immune. Yet Communism in its deepest sense is a gigantic failure. Even in the countries that dominate, hundreds of millions there still cling to their religious faiths, still are moved by aspirations for justice and for freedom, still dream of the day when they can walk fearlessly in the fullness of human freedom." Just as we in Singapore subject to the authoritarian rule of the Colonial Office dream of walking in the fullness of freedom. Two more paragraphs, Sir: "The destiny of man is freedom and justice under his Creator. Any ideology that denies this universal faith will ultimately perish or be recast. This is the first great truth that must underlie all our thinking, all our striving in this struggling world. A second truth is that the fundamental principles of human liberty and free government are powerful forces of human energy, loyalty and dedication and guides to enduring success. They are mightier than armaments and armies." That is what we sought for the people, Sir. We sought to give an opportunity for the powerful sources of human energy, loyalty and dedication to guide us to success over this threat. We tried to make the British people realise this truth, that freedom is a greater force against Communism than armaments and armies. The threat is there and I say you will not meet it by the perpetuation of colonialism. You will only strengthen it and it may well destroy the very interests which Mr Sutherland and I seek to protect because, Sir, though they will not see it, the long-term interests of this Colony are at one with the long-term interests of the United Kingdom. In the final analysis, we are on the same side of the table but, for the present, they would be blind. That is my answer. Sir, Mr Sutherland - I trust who did not seek to be unfair - has made selective quotations from the vernacular Press to prove that the vernacular Press was against Merdeka and for acceptance of the British offer. I have read the Chung Shing Jit Pao of the 19th of May and I lay it on the table for hon. Members to judge whether the excerpts which Mr Sutherland read were, in fact, fair to that paper and as for the Tamil Murasu, Sir, it is hopping mad. I have got this morning's paper and you will permit me to read it: "Mr Sutherland alleged that the Tamil Murasu also had written stating that the time was not ripe and suitable for full internal self-government. What the Tamil Murasu had stated in its editorial on the 18th of May is that it is the British Government's argument that the conditions of Singapore are not suitable for complete self-government. The experience of the people to take over the responsibility of the administration is very, very little - that is the British Government's view." I continue: "Moreover, there are Communist activities here. They are not the views of the Tamil Murasu as Mr Sutherland alleged. In fact, the Tamil Murasu has been backing with all its force at its command the demands of the Merdeka Mission for complete internal self-government for Singapore." In one paragraph, it has stated: "So far as the Merdeka talks are concerned, the people of Singapore could not find fault with the Chief Minister. Right to the end, he acted in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the delegation. It had to be accepted that nobody else could have discussed Singapore's demand for self-government as efficiently as he did. It is indeed curious that the British Government is ready to grant independence to the Federation, which at the same time brings out the permanent bugbear as a reason for denying independence to Singapore. It is clear, from these passages, what the Tamil Murasu, the organ of the Malayan Tamils, stands for." It seems to me that there is an apology due and I would like to add this since the question of vernacular papers has come up: one of my first acts on returning from England was to call in the Chinese editors and, at a separate conference, the Malay editors, to thank them for their honest stand in respect of the aspirations of the Singapore people, to thank them for the genuine support they gave and for their clear understanding of the issues. Let us be clear, Sir, as to where we stand. The Chinese Press, the Tamil Press and the Malay Press are domiciled. They understand the feelings of the Malayans. They do not represent the transient's view. They do not have loyalties which blind them to the truth. In the speech, Sir, apart from some inaccuracies and opinions with which I do not hold - it was an eminently able one - there was an unhappy discordant note struck by Mr Sutherland. He said in ending up, "I will not censure my Colonial Office." What is the distinction, Sir, between the attitude of a man who will not censure his own Government department, right or wrong, and the attitude of a man under the Communists or under the Fascists? None of them do. It is democracy that gives us the right to speak openly and to criticise where there is wrong and I am more than a little ashamed of an Englishman who has not the courage to criticise his own Colonial Office when it is wrong. I should have thought that they have more courage than that, Sir, and are capable of being loyal and yet critical. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) who, I am sure, would not seek to be unfair, has suggested that I was seeking to cover up the disunity in the delegation and there is an implication that I was seeking to do this for some ulterior motive. Let me repeat once more, Sir, and I say this in honesty and sincerity. Disunity there was - considerable disunity - but this was behind the scenes and all Parties should be congratulated on the manner in which they succeeded ultimately in a miraculous unity in facing the Colonial Office at the conference table. The Member for Changi said that all Parties indulged in party politics. I am sure he was bedevilled and bewildered at some of his colleagues in his own Party but let us be fair to those on the Government Benches. He must appreciate that we suffered humiliation quietly at the hands of the arrogant Secretary of the People's Action Party and we took it because we strove to maintain unity. He must remember the time when he said to me, "Do not be so soft. Throw the P.A.P. out"; and he must recognise today that we were right in being patient and that strong measures at that time would have broken up any unity and would have brought the odium of breakdown on the Singapore delegation and not where it truly rests - on the Colonial Office. Sir, the Labour Front did not at any time nor did any individual member indulge in any party politics. Let us be fair. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) said, "If we cannot have this poisoned cake, what about the Rendel Constitution? Is it not much worse than this poisoned cake?" I could not agree more, Sir. This is worse than a poisoned cake. It is gilded muck. But we did not put our hand to this Rendel Constitution voluntarily. The people of Singapore did not put their signatures and accept it for years to come. We are free to fight it and we will fight it. What we would have done in London though had we accepted this constitution was voluntarily in the name of the people of Singapore to put our hand to it and to tie them hand and foot for years to the constitution.

No, two years.

Even two years.

Order, please.

Sir, I thank the hon. Member for an attempted correction. There would have been a right to review after two years but no right to compel rectification. We would merely retain the status quo when no agreement was reached. We would still go back to the original constitution. So it was tying this country hand and foot to an agreement, which, I repeat, is worthy only of contempt. The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) - and I think the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) - has put the argument more clearly when he said, "Why not proceed step by step? Why not take half a loaf and then go on to more?" Sir, the best way to answer that argument is to try and repeat to you the argument of a member of the delegation who sought to advise us to accept. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) was there and he will remember and this is how the argument went. He said, "Let us take it. We will have control of Malayanisation. We will have control of the Police. We would have organised the country and worked up antagonism against the British and then throw them into the sea"; and that is just exactly what would have happened because if we had accepted this constitution, we would have all come back fighting and there would have been no distinction between the Labour Front, the P.A.P. or the Communists. Would this have made for stability? That is what the Member for Stamford (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) was trying to explain. We were fighting for long-term stability and to have accepted this constitution, to have worked, to have returned to a state where we would all have to work up anti-racial antagonism and anti-British antagonism, would have destroyed any possibility of stability, because it would have been for a period of years. The British could have said quite rightly, "Look, you agreed to this. No more of this nonsense. We are not going to see you" and, for a period of years, we would have to stomach and work up an ulcer that would have finally spoilt the whole set-up. Sir, I have listened to all the arguments and I must say that not one argument has been presented which has not underlined the correctness of our move in rejecting this constitution. I now move and I trust I will have the whole Assembly with me, That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

If it please you, Sir, I move the motion that stands in my name, That this Assembly takes note of the correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies between the 17th and the 30th May, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1956, on the subject of reopening the Singapore Constitutional Conference. Sir, in the normal course, this motion would not have been necessary and the correspondence which you now see in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1956 would have been incorporated with the White Paper as, in fact, Sir, is the case with the White Paper published by Her Majesty's Government and presented to Parliament; but I take this unusual step in order not to prejudice the debate on the stand of the delegation and in order to afford an opportunity to those who would censure me and who may not have had the time to put down a substantive motion. Sir, you will see that I have so worded my motion that any Member who may seek to censure me can ask for the removal of the three words "takes note of" and substitute one word "censures". I cannot bring a vote of censure on myself, Sir, and I think it must be admitted that I am giving the fullest opportunity to those who may wish to do so. Because, Sir, it is not permitted to assume of any Member of the Assembly that his conduct should be ascribed to irrepressible unscrupulousness sparked by the malice of jealousy, we must assume that he has acted with a sense of responsibility. In the circumstances, Sir, I must assume that when the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) called a Press conference in London on the very morning of the 17th of May when I was making efforts to reopen the constitutional conference, to his knowledge, and publicly made the filthiest accusations against me, he was acting with a sense of responsibility. It is true that by his actions he not only sullied me, sullied the whole delegation which had just finished negotiations with the Colonial Office, but he also sullied the reputation of Singapore, in the very country where we were seeking to justify our claim for political freedom. The Secretary of State for the Colonies owes the Member for Tanjong Pagar a debt of gratitude to have given him the opportunity to say on the morning of the 18th of May in the House of Commons that the Singapore delegation had "clearly disintegrated" and to put on record in his White Paper his view of that disintegration thereby seeking to throw the odium of the breakdown onto the Singapore delegation. When I returned to Singapore, Sir, I found that the English Press had taken the cue of the Member for Tanjong Pagar and sought to lead the country in a campaign of virulent abuse that made me the scapegoat of the frustrations of defeat. I consider that this sadistic pastime, in which the Press of Singapore and Members of this Assembly have indulged of bear-baiting the Chief Minister, is dangerous to the welfare of the country and to the self-respect of the people of Singapore. If a Member of the Assembly wishes to attack the Chief Minister or any other Minister, the proper forum for such attack is to face him openly in this Assembly and not to go stabbing him in the back by one-sided Press statements. In the circumstances, Sir, in order to bring this important principle home, I have, as my last act as Chief Minister, brought this motion so that I trust the Members of this Assembly and the people of this country will appreciate that the proper forum for criticism by Assemblymen of Assemblymen and Ministers is here and I now give an opportunity to those who have so foully reviled me in my absence to condemn me in my presence. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar spoke truly yesterday when he said that, on the night of the breakdown of the conference, I had no idea whatsoever of reopening the talks, but he must have been conscious that I had not the slightest intention of giving up the struggle for freedom from colonialism. The talks broke down at about 4.

30. Between 4.30 and 11 o'clock that night, I gave two television interviews, several radio interviews and I addressed a large gathering at a public meeting. On the following morning, I considered it my duty to hand over all the conference papers of both sides to various newspapers and I took them to Members of Parliament including Members of the Labour Party. I then learnt that at 3 p.m., the Secretary of State was going to make a statement on Singapore. I did not learn it from the Colonial Office, Sir, but I learnt it from some friends who are Members of the House. I managed to rush from one of my meetings to the House of Commons and there heard the Secretary of State explain that the breakdown of the talks, as you have heard from Hansard, was absolutely, completely and entirely due to our refusing him powers over external defence and foreign affairs. Mr Noel Baker, who was there, was good enough to assist me and when he heard that I disagreed with the interpretation suggested that he call a Press conference at which I could give my own views of the subject, but before doing so, I asked for an interview with the leaders of the British Labour Party and, at that interview, whilst I was trying to explain to them why I did not trust the Colonial Office - whereas I am completely willing to trust the British people and the House of Commons - an idea occurred to me. I put this to them and they, who are experienced and impartial, said that the idea certainly had the possibility of an honest compromise and it might well be possible to reopen the negotiations before the breakdown had turned cold. I then returned in haste to the flat and called an urgent meeting of the delegation for 6 p.m. This was, Sir, Wednesday, the 16th of May. Only a few delegates turned up and it was quite obvious that they were suffering from the lassitude and depression of defeat. I did not wish to press it further. I asked them all and I sent a message to the remainder to come to the flat again for a final meeting at 9 o'clock the following morning. That same night as you are aware, Sir - Wednesday night - at the end of a very pleasant social evening and at the request of the Secretary of State, I accompanied him to his home and, from midnight till 2 a.m., we discussed this idea for reopening the talks. He and his Minister of State for the Colonies were present and when we ended up, they both suggested that they would wish to know the reaction of the remainder of the delegates before they would give their own views. So it was arranged that there should be a social function - a tea party - at which to attempt an informal sounding of individual members before the matter was taken up on an official basis. Sir, at nine the following morning, the delegates were there and I found that in so far as the Opposition Parties were concerned, they had, it seemed, received Party mandates and were not interested in reopening the talks. I asked whether I might, on my own responsibility, make this approach and this was agreed to. The Member for Tanjong Pagar was present and he himself said, "If you want to make it on your own responsibility, you can do so."

When was this?

This was at 9 to 9.30 a.m, in my flat on Thursday, the 17th of May.

On the 16th of May.

Order, please. The Chief Minister says 17th and the Opposition says 16th.

If, it please you, Sir, I have it in mind. I have a chronology. Sir, on the 15th we failed; on the 16th there was a statement in the House of Commons at 3 p.m.; on the 16th, was my social function with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 16th also, at 6 p.m., was my meeting of the delegates and on the 17th morning, was my next and final meeting. From there, we rushed, I think, to the B.B.C. for a broadcast "Calling Asia". Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar will now remember. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, although it was agreed that I should do this on my own responsibility, lost no time in making impossible the success of the approach and he proceeded to take steps, very successfully, to torpedo my efforts. He called a Press conference at which he indulged in the most scurrilous abuse of me and of the idea and then proceeded to manoeuvre amongst the other members of the delegation. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar seems to have the effect on some people of a hooded cobra on a rabbit. He fascinates them and then he hypnotizes them into docility and unthinking obedience. You know what the result was of that effort to reopen negotiations. On the morning of the 17th, I put my conversation with the Secretary of State in writing and he received the letter on the same day. Now, Sir, what was this idea? If I may read the letter, Sir - it is not very long: "Since the breakdown of the Conference on Tuesday an idea for a new approach to our differences has occurred to me. I am putting forward the suggestion contained in this letter entirely on my own initiative and responsibility. You are aware how repugnant the whole principle of over-riding powers of legislation is to me personally and how dangerous I consider the existence of such powers is to the principle I seek to establish of stable and friendly relations with the United Kingdom. These imperial powers of legislation (as defined by you) are far outside the scope of what is normally understood by the phrase 'external defence'. This question of over-riding powers is also very repugnant to the majority of my colleagues and in the circumstances I do not wish to raise the matter with them again until I have some assurance that there is a prospect that my suggestion would be acceptable to the Colonial Office as a basis for negotiation. The suggestion is this: -

Order, please. It has been pointed out to me that possibly the Governor's recommendation or consent has not yet been signified.

I am indeed indebted to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I keep forgetting this is the Rendel Constitution. His Excellency the Governor has given his consent for this motion to be considered by the Assembly. Sir, on that last phrase, I was taunted with it by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) that I should express admiration for Mr Lennox-Boyd's ability. Well, let me say this and I repeat it: I have the highest regard for that man's ability. He is an asset to any side for which he bats and I am sorry he is batting for the Colonial Office. That does not mean that I respect his policies. Now, if I may explain these three ingredients of my suggestion. I think I have made it clear how dangerous I considered the over-riding imperial legislative powers which the Colonial Office sought to retain but if, in fact, it was no longer the Colonial Office that would be responsible for the relationship of Singapore with the United Kingdom but some other Ministry accustomed to dealing with human beings as equals, and if - that is the main "if" - before the British High Commissioner could use these over-riding powers he had to seek the approval and public debate of the House of Commons, I considered that the imperial over-riding legislative powers would, in fact, if not in theory, become almost a dead letter. Sir, it is true that the Conservative Party has a majority. It is also true that they can steamroller anything they want but to work on that basis would be to say, "Let us have one election and close down Parliament and the majority can do what it pleases." That, in fact, as hon. Members in these short fourteen months of this Government have learnt, is not the way democracy works and the fact that a matter has to come before the House of Commons, that it has to be publicly debated and it has to submit itself to the full glare of the country's Press publicity, would be a very grave deterrent to any misuse of those powers. It is true that the continual existence of these powers even with this protection would be an irritation to the people of Singapore but no British civil servant would have dared to seek to interfere in our daily life when he knew that he had to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons and his conduct would come under the scrutiny of Members of both sides of the House and the people of the country. Sir - it may be a little difficult for the man-in-the-street to understand - I have followed with interest parliamentary procedure and traditions for a long time and I was satisfied in my mind that the acceptance of these provisions and affirmative resolution in the House of Commons would, to a large extent, nullify the evil of the over-riding powers. It would, shall we say, be an agent to counteract the poison in the cake. My second request, Sir, was one that merely repeated what the delegation had consistently insisted on - the transfer of our relations with the United Kingdom from the Colonial Office to another Ministry. To those who have not suffered the authoritarian rule and traditions of arrogance of the Colonial Office and its inhumanity in the exploitation of its empire, this might seem a small matter. But to me and to many of us, this is not a trimming as the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) suggested. This is a matter of importance both as to content and as to psychological effect. The people of Singapore would then be conscious that there was an end to colonial rule and we ourselves in our relations with the United Kingdom would be able to deal with persons who have traditions of dealing with human beings as equals and not as imbecilic slaves. The third and last ingredient of my suggestion, Sir, was that the British could have their High Commissioner. Very well, let him be the Chairman of the Defence and Security Council but he should not be the head of the State of Singapore. We could not be expected to give our loyalty to a political representative of Her Majesty's Government with whom we might be in constant conflict on various aspects of the constitution. It is impossible, Sir, to ask the people genuinely to give their loyalty to such a personality. We therefore said we wanted a Malayan Governor-General who would not be a representative of Her Majesty's Government but would be the representative of Her Majesty with the important though decorative functions of the Queen. In this fashion, we hoped to have the opportunity to coalesce our feelings of loyalty and through this to grow to full nationhood. When the Member for Serangoon says, "There is no difference between Governor and Governor-General", he showed, if I may say so, Sir, a complete lack of understanding of the political content of these different posts. The difference is the same as between Mr Hitler and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. One is a constitutional monarch acting on the advice of Her Ministers and in no way interfering her personality in the politics of the day - which would be a Malayan Governor-General - and the other is a dictator as is our Governor. Then, Sir, I received a message on the early morning of the 18th - again from a friend in the House of Commons and not from the Secretary of State - saying to me, "You said that you did not get a reply from the Secretary of State to your letter. Well, he is going to reply to you in public in the House of Commons at eleven o'clock." So I rushed down to the House of Commons, Sir, and to my delighted astonishment, I heard him say - I read from column 2381 of Hansard, Vol. 552, No. 157 of the 18th of May, 1956: "The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd): I was approached early yesterday by the Chief Minister of Singapore (This is, Sir, after he has received my letter) proposing a basis for resumption of negotiations. As a consequence, I asked the Singapore delegation to meet me informally. Unfortunately, out of the twelve delegates who are still in London, only the Chief Minister and two of his Government colleagues found themselves able to attend. When I asked whether these proposals had the support of the delegation he replied they were purely his personal suggestions." Now, listen to this, Sir: "I stated that I was perfectly ready to discuss these proposals (in the plural) provided that they were put forward either by the delegation or by the Singapore Government." Sir, at 5.30 that afternoon, I received his letter on page 2 and you will notice there that he merely referred to one ingredient of my suggestion and conveniently, may I say it, intentionally, ignored the remaining two. That letter was received by me after his departure for Southampton - no doubt, an accident. In any event, Sir, I sat down and wrote the letter at page 3 pleading for clarification and I asked the Colonial Office that it be delivered to the Secretary of State. I was told that the Secretary of State was on the high seas and would not surface for ten days. So I asked that it be sent by despatch rider to the Minister of State for the Colonies who had already gone to his country home and I contacted him by telephone. I was told that I need not expect a reply till I reached Singapore, but, in fact, I did get a reply, Sir. You will find at page 4 from the Minister of State on the night before my early departure for Delhi and Singapore - the night of the 20th - I received this in which he said, "I should be in no doubt as to what the Secretary of State meant", but he still did not say what he meant. Sir, I wrote to him a reply on the same night and I taxed him with the terms of his letter when he was good enough to come and see me off at the airport on the following morning. It is true we had a conversation then but it was a conversation which the Minister of State emphasised was not for publication in any aspect and it is therefore with some surprise and not a little disgust that I find the Secretary of State in his telegram of the 30th of May referring to these conversations which were supposed to be private in every aspect. Sir, I was more than a little astonished at the extraordinary reaction in Singapore to my efforts to reopen negotiations and I asked my loyal friend and colleague, the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock), "Can you understand?" He said to me, "Well, to the Chinese population, your action in rushing back to push open the door that they had slammed in your face was undignified" and he quoted to me, Sir, the Chinese proverb about the swallowing back of your phlegm once you have spat it out. Sir, I am sorry if there are citizens in this city who consider that my action in seeking to reopen negotiations was undignified and to them I will say this: I think dignity has its place at the proper time but if dignity interferes with the welfare of the people, then it is not only unrewarding and sterile, it can be criminal. When I attended the House of Commons on the afternoon of Wednesday, the 16th of May, I realised that here was an opportunity either for forcing the reopening of the talks or for making known to the whole world in the clearest possible fashion the humbug of the Colonial Office and their blatant unreasonableness. Either way, we stood to gain. Either way it was for the benefit of Singapore. Was I to sit on my bottom with injured pride and sorrowful dignity when I could do something to help? That is not the way I live, Sir. Since there was an opportunity to do some good, I took it even if I had to take it alone just as I welcomed the invitation to break my stay at New Delhi in order to acquaint the Prime Minister of India - that very human and truly great man - of the true facts of the case in the hope that when he does discuss it - as I understand he will discuss it at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference - he would at least be fully cognizant of our own point of view. Has any good resulted from my effort to force the reopening of negotiations? If I am to believe my colleagues, no good has resulted for me personally. They say that if I had returned immediately after the breakdown, I would have been a hero, but thanks to the opportunity I gave to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and to the English Press, almost the entire population of Singapore was misled as to the nature of my efforts. I do say this, Sir: my efforts, if they have achieved nothing else, have proved two things. They have proved the genuine anxiety of the people of Singapore for an honourable peace with the United Kingdom and for an honest constitution. They have also permitted world opinion to penetrate the sanctimonious smokescreen of British propaganda and enabled the world to judge of the ugly brutality of the new British colonial policy. This much is now clear as I indicated yesterday. There are only two issues dividing the Secretary of State from me as these letters prove. One is a Malayan Governor-General; and let us make it clear: this does not interfere with the appointment of a British High Commissioner to be Chairman of the Defence and Security Council. That is their business. We want our Governor-General to be a Malayan and the second thing Sir, is to transfer us from the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office to another Ministry. Only these two things separate us and yet we have Prime Ministers saying, "The breakdown of the constitutional talks is due to powers over internal security"; and we have the Secretary of State saying, "No, no, the breakdown is due to external defence." How is it possible - I would ask not only this House but I would ask the world that listens - to twist the truth to such an extent as to pretend that the two issues now remaining between the Secretary of State and myself can be deemed to affect either internal security or external defence? I have not known even Communist propaganda go the length of such blatant lies - I repeat lies. I think it is good for the people of Singapore and world public opinion to have these issues clear-cut. I still hope that once the hurt pride of the Colonial Office is mollified by the diplomacy of my successor, it will give way to the pressure of world opinion and especially Asian opinion and let me add English opinion, too, Sir, because when I was in England, I was satisfied that if it was English public opinion or even if it was the House of Commons that was to decide our fate and to decide freely without the coercion of a Whip, we would have got our very moderate and very honest aims and plans. I would not like to believe, Sir, that the failure of the constitutional conference in fact and in truth ushers in a new era and tolls the knell of passing day for the humanitarian policy and principles which made possible the retention by the United Kingdom of the friendship and co-operation of her colonies, and therefore I say, Sir, that my efforts in seeking to reopen these negotiations, although they have been abortive - and in this as to who is to blame, I let the Assembly judge from the recital of the facts - they have, in fact, clarified in the public mind the real issues and the public not only of Singapore and of England but of many other countries now recognise that there is no truth whatsoever in the Colonial Office propaganda about external defence and foreign affairs. I believe that there will be mounting pressure to give us the fulfilment of our legitimate aspirations.

Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve the right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I nearly missed this last opportunity of sharing a debate together with our illustrious Chief Minister. I was supposed to be elsewhere at this moment. I still have to go very shortly but may I just speak on the position as I saw it. On Tuesday, 15th May, the talks broke down. It broke down on the question of who was to be the Chairman of the Defence and Security Council and who was to have the last word on the necessity for these over-riding powers of legislation. It was a vital principle which we had discussed for at least five preceding days and we decided, on Tuesday, that we could not yield and that we had to stand firm. It was a matter of principle and we stood firm. Sir, I do not think anyone can be more vehement than the Hon. the Chief Minister when he denounced the proposal as bad, wicked and poisonous. I have here with me the English morning papers of May the 16th. They have more or less fair and accurate reports of the series of Press conferences and. T.V. interviews held by our Chief Minister that evening, together with one public meeting where I was on the same platform. One report which gives a fair report is the one in the Manchester Guardian. It said: "The Singapore constitutional talks were broken off last evening with no agreement reached. Mr David Marshall, the Chief Minister and leader of the Singapore delegation, will fly home on Sunday - earlier if he can get a seat on a plane - and will then resign. He has so informed the Governor who is in London. It is understood that the Governor cannot accept his resignation until they both return to Singapore. Mr Marshall was in a bitter, angry mood on emerging from the final meeting, and at an impromptu Press conference, he used violent and ill-tempered words. If, he said, there were fresh elections in Singapore as a result of his resignation he and his Party would boycott them - or rather, he said, on second thoughts, they would put up advanced lepers for election and return lepers to show their contempt for the present Constitution." Then it goes on to say: "One need not question the genuineness of Mr Marshall's disappointment at the break-down of these talks - "it was the greatest disappointment of my life", he said. But it was embarrassing to witness so frank and uncontrolled an exhibition of it, It did not inspire..." Sir, if we did not agree with those statements, we would have dissociated ourselves from them. He spoke as the leader of the delegation. Though we ourselves might have chosen less vehement language, we generally shared the sentiments he expressed. But it is important, when we conduct the affairs of a people, that we should not only say what we feel, but also act in a manner which leaves nobody in doubt that we have acted according to it. On Wednesday, Sir, there was no lassitude of defeat as far as I remember. I went round St. James Park in the morning to shake off the ill-effects of smoky conference rooms. I had a sturdy lunch -

Lucky man.

- and I sat down to read the afternoon papers one of which was the Evening Standard and I think this picture of the Chief Minister described the feeling of the delegation: anger, frustration and a slight touch of bitterness. At five o'clock, I received a telephone call from the secretary of the delegation, Mr Hoffman. I was informed that there was to be a meeting of all delegates at six. I was astounded, because I thought that henceforth we would just march on holding one public meeting after another. Perhaps on a Sunday we would hold a mass protest rally of 10,000 in Trafalgar Square just like the Cypriots did the week before. The students were or- ganising protest meetings. The Movement for Colonial Freedom was organising a protest meeting. When I asked the secretary what it was about, he said that there was a possibility of reopening the talks. And so this was one of the lighter moments those of us who were in London shared: I went to wake up my friend and back-seat driver the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) who shared my flat. He was fast asleep - I do not know whether it was the heavy, tiring and tedious labour of the conference. I shook him up and said, "We have a meeting at six. You know we are going to reopen the talks." He stood up and looked at me astounded and he said, "Go away. Do not play fool with me." So I said, "No, I am not playing the fool. There is a meeting at six" and we went and so did the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan). I think our memory on this point is quite clear. It was the Wednesday following the breakdown and we told the Hon. the Chief Minister that we could not share his point of view. We could not stop him if he wished to do anything on his own initiative. In fact, on that occasion, I was somewhat dazed by it all. The one who was most vehement was my friend the Member for Tiong Bahru. However, it was all confidential and I went off to dinner with some friends. I listened, with a sense of doom, to the seven o'clock B.B.C. news which opened up with the headline that the Chief Minister of Singapore was resigning. Then at ten o'clock the B.B.C. news said, "The Chief Minister of Singapore has announced that he has a fresh approach." Well, quite honestly, I thought that it was a serious breach of confidence. We were told at six o'clock that the whole thing was in confidence. At ten o'clock I heard it over the B.B.C. I then said to myself, "Well, since it is now public, we must publicly dissociate ourselves from it." So we called a Press conference for the following day at half-past eleven. Sir, this is the last sitting of this session. If what I have said of him has affronted the Hon. the Chief Minister personally, I am sorry. Politically, I will not retract one word of what I have said. I acted on behalf of my Party and I am convinced that what I did was right, that my Party had to dissociate itself publicly from a secret move which had become public. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister flattered me when he said that I have an intense power of fascination over other members of the delegation. I do not want that compliment. I think it is an insult to them to say that they acted as a result of my instigation. They acted because I think they shared the feeling at that time that that was not the way in which affairs of state should have been conducted. Sir, nobody in this House would be mad enough to try and move a motion of censure on the Hon. the Chief Minister. In fact, everyone would like this episode to close gracefully and quietly. Unpleasant things have already happened, and the less said about them the better. I think the letters which went between him and the Secretary of State make melancholy reading. I felt that the right thing to have done was to stop when the curtain dropped on the 15th. We decided before it dropped that that was the right moment. I still do not believe that anything transpired between the breakdown of the conference and the attempted reopening or the fresh approach 24 hours later which had altered the situation. We had weighed all the pros and cons before we acted. There was nothing new. However, we are asked to take note of these papers and so we will. We hope that whoever picks up from where the Hon. the Chief Minister left off will be blessed with more fortune, with more goodwill; perhaps also with more united support from a movement which we should spend our time in building. It is not a question of convincing the British people what nice and civilized people we are in Singapore. It is a question of building up a movement which makes it quite obvious to them that unless we are allowed to look after our affairs, we are likely to take some drastic steps to put it into effect against their wishes. I wish the retiring Hon. Chief Minister a pleasant holiday. Many in this House, in spite of all our disagreements with him, would like to say that he did not spare himself in the conference; he worked hard, he believed in what he was doing and he went all out to do it. Sometimes he was very wrong and I am sorry we had to tell him that he was very wrong. However, all said and done, we wish him bon voyage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though I have the pleasure of speaking on this motion, actually there is nothing much for me to say except to confirm my statement yesterday that there were party politics and disunity within the delegation at the London talks. Hon. Members will remember that the Chief Minister had earlier tried to cover this up by saying that the disunity was only behind the scenes, but just now we heard him say that not only were there party politics and disunity after the breakdown of the talks, but that many a time before that happened - at public meetings, student gatherings and even at cocktail parties - the disunity was there, running beneath the surface like an undercurrent and only awaiting the opportunity to come to the surface when party politics would be brought in. Let me ask the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) this: "Why cannot he let the Chief Minister have a chance to reopen the negotiations on his own initiative?" It was said that the Chief Minister did not keep his word, which he gave at 6 o'clock, to keep confidential his move to reopen the talks when at 10 o'clock the B.B.C. broadcast it. Why should the Member for Tanjong Pagar call a Press conference on the following morning and say, "This is the P.A.P. stand." Was that not party politics? Why should the P.A.P. make clear its stand in London and not in this House? It is true that I told a certain reporter that I was also responsible for the reopening of the talks. I should now like to state the facts. First, I wish to declare that the meeting with some Labourite Members to discuss the possibility of reopening the talks was not prearranged. Second, it is not correct to say, as the Chief Minister did, that the tea party that the delegation attended on 17th May was informal. There was definitely no meeting on that day. No member of the delegation was officially informed that there was to be a semi-official meeting -

At 9 o'clock in the morning.

No. But after the breakdown of the talks on 16th May, yes, in the afternoon. I chanced to be with the Member for Ulu Bedok (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) and, I think, the Minister for Health (Mr Braga). We were talking when suddenly the Member for Ulu Bedok said, "I think it is nice for us to go to the House of Commons and listen to the debate on the Merdeka talks." It was then about 3 o'clock. I thought that was a good idea and we went. About 20 minutes later, I think, the Chief Minister joined us. We enjoyed the debate. We appreciated the way in which the Rt. Hon. Mr James Griffiths and the Rt. Hon. Mr Aneurin Bevan went all out to press the Secretary of State to reopen the Merdeka talks and they emphasised the point repeatedly that he must not let the door close. After the debate, the Rt. Hon. Mr Bevan waved a hand at us and gave us a sign that we three - the Chief Minister, the Member for Ulu Bedok and myself - should join him in the lobby. We hurried to meet him. He was joined by the Rt. Hon. Mr Creech Jones and another friend. Then the Chief Minister said that since the Labourite Members might not know much about the talks with the Colonial Office, it was advisable to get all the papers ready and he sent the Member for Ulu Bedok and myself to get them. This we did and then we went into one of the committee rooms to discuss the matter. The Chief Minister put his case very clearly to the three Labourites. Then he had the idea of transferring Singapore from the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office to another Ministry. He said, "Let us put it this way. We can trust the British people, but we cannot trust the Colonial Office." I think it was during this time that one of the Labourites asked, "Do you not think it is better for us to make the initial arrangements to reopen the talks?" But the Chief Minister said, "No, let me do it." Thus, the Chief Minister was responsible for the initial move to reopen the talks. Then he arranged a Press conference, but I did not know when he arranged it. During this conference the Chief Minister repeatedly attacked the Secretary of State, and the Member for Ulu Bedok and I were quite unhappy about it. Because of it, I was forced to speak in Malay to the Chief Minister, "Tolong lah, chakap pendek sikit." I said, in Malay, that since he was going to try and reopen the talks, he should not spoil things by lashing the Secretary of State with his tongue. I had to stop him twice by saying in Malay, "Jangan chakap, tolong lah, jangan chakap." That is the truth. Then we rushed back to the Chief Minister's flat and had a meeting with the other delegates. My then colleague the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) asked, "How can I face my friends if we reopen the talks? It would be shameful!" I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said, "I strongly reject the idea of reopening the talks." The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), I believe, remarked, "All right, if the Chief Minister thinks it fitting to reopen the talks, he can go ahead on his own initiative." I can assure this House now that the responsibility for reopening the Merdeka talks rested solely on the shoulders of the Chief Minister. I had expected to hear from the Chief Minister after his meeting with Mr Lennox-Boyd, but there was no news from him. I did not know that it was arranged that the tea party should be the occasion for semi-official talks because we did not have a meeting the following morning. We did not know what result the Chief Minister had from his meeting with the Secretary of State. My Party's view was, "Since we have failed in the talks, we are not very keen on going to this send-off party and say there, 'Goodbye, thank you very much.' " So I did not attend the tea-party. But I would like to take this opportunity to say that if I had known that the tea-party would be a semi-official affair, I would have attended it. Speaking on the motion, I appreciate the spirit in which the Member for Tanjong Pagar puts it - that there is no need to censure the Chief Minister. For myself, I think the Hon. the Chief Minister did the right thing, and if the public want to throw mud at him, I would ask them to throw a little bit at me too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion here says that "this Assembly takes note of the correspondence" and we also take note. We stand by what we said to the Hon. the Chief Minister at the last delegate meeting in London - that it was just not done, for us - the representatives of the people of Singapore - to go back and ask for the reopening of the talks after the breakdown. If we were individuals, it would have been different. But we represent the people of Singapore and I think we should know the feelings of the people. However, what was already done could not be undone.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had the opportunity of reading these letters exchanged between our Chief Minister and the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I came to the conclusion that our Chief Minister had shown exceptional ability in the negotiations. We all know, Sir, that the colonial language and the letter written by the Secretary of State for the Colonies is an example of colonial diplomacy. I feel sure, Sir, that although some people of Singapore do not now see the wisdom of the actions of our Chief Minister, the people of Singapore would, in due course, understand the purpose for which the Chief Minister has stood and worked all along. These letters and the reports of the Mission have clearly indicated to the people of Singapore the honesty and sincerity of a man who has worked for the benefit of the people and who is still prepared to continue his good work for the people. The relentless attacks on him from the Press have shown that in him lies the future of the people of Singapore - a courageous man who is patriotic and who still believes in the sincerity of the people and of his own Mission. I say this, Sir, because I had occasion to be present in the Press conference room on the day the Chief Minister arrived. After half an hour of the Press conference, I heard two European journalists talking to each other. One man was asking the other, "Now that we have got these reports, what shall we do? Shall we praise him or shall we bury him?" That is the attitude of the Press all along against this man who has been working for the freedom of the people of Singapore. That is how the newspapermen looked at the man; and I say this, Sir, at this sitting, that the people of Singapore will always appreciate the hard and sincere work which our Chief Minister has done. I do hope that his resignation and his absence from the Assembly will be a very short one and that he will come back to us and lead the people of Singapore towards complete freedom and not a half Merdeka.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly takes note of the correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies between the 17th and the 30th May, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc, 2 of 1956, on the subject of reopening the Singapore Constitutional Conference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Land Titles Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 3 of 1956, be adopted subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 2 to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee to consider clause 2 of the Bill.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 2 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, In page 107, Part XVIII, against section 141, to leave out the words "Penal provisions" and insert "Offences and penalties". This, Sir, is a consequential amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

There is a further amendment, Sir, to the same clause. I move, In page 107, Part XVIII, to insert a new item "142 . . . Saving of City Council's rights".

Question, "That the figure and words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended on recommittal, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Sir, I have the consent of the Governor under Standing Order 33 to move the following motion, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 11 of the University of Malaya Ordinance, 1949 (No. 12 of 1949), resolves that the University of Malaya (Staff Transfer) (Amendment) Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 148 in the Gazette Supplement No. 33 of 10th May, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 18 of 1956, be approved. Sir, the purpose of this motion is to seek the approval of the Assembly to the amendment which has been tabled as S.L. 18 of 1956 and the purpose of that amendment is to make special provision for the pensionable emoluments of the first holder of the post of Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University. This is an arrangement which I foreshadowed when some time ago in the then Legislative Council, I introduced the main Rules. I then said that it would be necessary to make special arrangements for this case. These are now being made and I seek the approval of the Assembly.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 11 of the University of Malaya Ordinance, 1949 (No. 12 of 1949), resolves that the University of Malaya (Staff Transfer) (Amendment) Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 148 in the Gazette Supplement No. 33 of 10th May, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 18 of 1956, be approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 8 of the Revised Edition of the Laws Ordinance. 1951 (No. 25 of 1951), resolves that the Governor be authorized to order, by notification in the Gazette, that the Revised Edition of Ordinances prepared under the provisions of that Ordinance shall come into force from such date as he may think fit. Sir, it will be clear to hon. Members, from the terms of the motion, that the work of preparing the Revised Edition of Ordinances, which is designed to replace the existing Revised Edition which was brought into force in 1936 and, of course, designed to replace the Annual Supplements to that Edition, has now been completed. Sir, copies of the new volumes have been in the Assembly Library for some little while, I think, and I have no doubt that many Members are familiar with them. Now, Sir, all that remains to be done is to bring the new Edition into force so that it may take the place of the 1936 Edition and I am now asking the Assembly to authorise that this may be done. Sir, I hope that the new Edition will be welcomed by the Assembly and, of course, by the legal profession and indeed by all who have, from time to time, to refer to the laws of the colony. Sir, I do not wish to say very much more but I do not think that I should allow this occasion to pass without expressing the appreciation of the Commissioners - one of whom was my predecessor - for the work done by the officers of my Department and, of course, for the work done by the Government Printer and his staff. I am sure that it will be generally agreed that the Government Printer has produced a very handsome and well-bound Edition of the Laws. Finally, I think it quite proper on this occasion that I should express my appreciation for the work of Mr Simpson - an officer of my Department - and one of the Commissioners who has so efficiently undertaken the bulk of the work involved. Sir, I beg to move.

I have pleasure to second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 8 of the Revised Edition of the Laws Ordinance. 1951 (No. 25 of 1951), resolves that the Governor be authorized to order, by notification in the Gazette, that the Revised Edition of Ordinances prepared under the provisions of that Ordinance shall come into force from such date as he may think fit.

Sir, I have the authority of His Excellency to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $541,578 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 29 of 1956. Sir, the reasons for all the applications in the Schedule are fully explained and I have nothing further to add. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule

If hon. Members turn to page 7, they will find a summary of the totals required for each Head. I propose to call each Head and the total, and if any hon. Member wishes to speak on any Head, please stop me. Head 3 - The sum of $1,500 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 4 - The sum of $13,670 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 6 - The sum of $10 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 10 - The sum of $1,500 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18 - The sum of $10 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19 - The sum of $93,820 for Head 19ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20 - The sum of $1,100 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21 - The sum of $32,650 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24 - The sum of $129,367 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 28 - The sum of $10 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29 - The sum of $67,140 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 31 - The sum of $12,420 for Head 31ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 32 - The sum of $130,000 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 34 - The sum of $10 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39 - The sum of $13,500 for Head 39ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45 - The sum of $1,410 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49 - The sum of $745 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54 - The sum of $8,610 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55 - The sum of $4,820 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56 - The sum of $7,515 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58 - The sum of $336 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60 - The sum of $230 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12 - The sum of $14,807 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 35 - The sum of $243 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 53 - The sum of $8,500 for Head D 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $541,578 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $541,578 ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $541,578 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 29 of 1956," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $541,578 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 29 of 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly pursuant to subsection (1) (b) of section 4 of the Architects Ordinance, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941) resolves that the Scale of Fees to be charged by persons registered under Part II of the Ordinance for professional advice or services rendered or work done, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 32 of 1956 be approved. I had better make clear the meaning of the approval, which I seek from the Assembly. Under the existing legislation, the Board of Architects fixes the architects' fees, subject to the approval of the Assembly. The fees were last fixed by the Board and approved by the Legislature in 1932 and now, in 1956, the Board has had a look at them and has proposed a new scale of fees, fixed after discussion, and it is now for the Assembly to decide whether to approve it or not. If the Assembly approves, then the new scale becomes operative; if the Assembly disapproves, then the 1932 scale remains in operation. The existing law gives this Assembly no power to direct the Board as to what fees should be charged. It has only the power of veto; it has no power of initiative. The choice, very simply, is between the 1932 scale and the scale now proposed - 1956. Before discussing the new scale, I should like to explain that this motion for changes in the scale of fees is only one stage in a general reassessment of the professional organisation of our architects. I have had valuable discussions with representatives of the architects and I fully share their feeling of the great need to strengthen their professional organisation. In the past, they have maintained a close link with the Royal Institute of British Architects and, in the earlier days of a colonial territory, that was no doubt very appropriate; but now with an increasing number of qualified professional men and with Singapore moving very fast towards independent nationhood -

I hope so.

- it is desirable that we should have also strong local professional organisations which can conduct their professional affairs on lines appropriate to this territory, which may not necessarily be the same in its local circumstances as the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that this build-up of our professional organisations can and should be done reasonably quickly. An essential step in the build-up of the architect's profession is the recognition of the civil engineering degrees which large numbers of Malayans are seeking or have sought in Australia, so that having acquired the appropriate civil engineering degrees in Australia, they can then sign and pass plans and function to that extent as architects. The question of getting their recognition accepted and approved and working out satisfactory arrangements has involved a great deal of work but it has been done and has been embodied in a Bill - I must not anticipate future business of the Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I can mention perhaps that I had a Bill on the Assembly Order Paper which I had to withdraw - and one of the provisions would have been allowing Malayans with civil engineering degrees from Australia to practise, as I have said. However, we had to withdraw the Bill because the life of the Assembly was uncertain and it was obviously not a justifiable case for a Certificate of Urgency to go through the First, Second and Third Readings today, but it can be entered again at the first opportunity. Now, to turn to this actual motion for approval, the First Schedule and the Second Schedule together constitute a useful advance. The First Schedule deals with conditions of engagement of architects and, in fact, it has been drawn up so as to follow pretty closely the 1954 revisions of the Royal Institute of British Architects in the United Kingdom which provide a satisfactory model for the purpose wanted at this stage. I see no objection to those R.I.B.A. requirements being followed for the time being. The revised conditions of engagement do clarify certain points on which there has been, sometimes, in the past, vexatious obscurity and which has led to uncertainty, and a more precise definition is for the benefit of the architects' clients. The Second Schedule, which is perhaps more interesting to the ordinary man, introduces three valuable changes. The first is the principle of what is called quantum meruit which should now be applied specifically when friendly relations between the architect and the client are broken off before the building is completed. The principle of quantum meruit means, broadly, that the architect gets fees calculated on the work which is actually done and not on the ultimate cost, whether it is actual or estimated, of the completed building. The second provision is that the architects who are building low-cost housing below $15,000 a unit need not be bound by this scale of fees and can negotiate with their clients any fee they like, presumably a lower fee for simple repetitive work. The client and the architect can, therefore, get together and work out an appropriate fee for a mass-production type of job and, following from this, the former sliding scale which ranged from 10 per cent to 7� per cent of the total value of the work done is now replaced by a fixed rate of 7� per cent. These three significant adjustments undoubtedly constitute improvements over the 1932 Schedule and I think hon. Members will probably support them. If any hon. Member would like to have any point explained, I will heartily try to satisfy him.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly pursuant to subsection (1) (b) of section 4 of the Architects Ordinance, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941) resolves that the Scale of Fees to be charged by persons registered under Part II of the Ordinance for professional advice or services rendered or work done, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 32 of 1956, be approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 477 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 150), resolves that the Singapore Port (Amendment No. 2) Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 157 in the Gazette Supplement No. 38 of 4th June, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 20 of 1956, be approved. Sir, the necessity for an Assembly resolution is to bring into force the Gazette Notification, the purpose of which is to delete two landing places from the list of landing places now existing. These two landing places are: one at Hylam Kongsi and the other at Clyde Terrace, and the need to close them down is because there is a letter from the President of the City Council stating that work on the coastal road has been hampered because of loading and unloading from small craft along these landing places. When the road is completed, these landing places will have to go anyhow and therefore it is thought that it will help the construction of the road, if they were closed now. Alternative landing places are already built for the people formerly using these places, along the banks of the Rochore River and also at Crawford Street. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 477 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 150), resolves that the Singapore Port (Amendment No. 2) Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 157 in the Gazette Supplement No. 38 of 4th June, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 20 of 1956, be approved.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 4.05 p.m. sine die.