Hansard, 1956-10-04

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand it is the wish of hon. Members that the business at today's sitting should be completed today. I therefore ask your assent and the consent of this House to enable me to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders.

Have I the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members: Aye.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I now move, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

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 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Monday, 5th November, 1956.

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 to Monday, 5th November, 1956.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to the Second Reading of this Bill. Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Clerks Employment Bill yesterday, I had already covered most of the ground in respect of this Bill. I cannot think that hon. Members need to be convinced of the need for legislation to protect shop assistants. As a class of worker, they have never been very vocal in demanding this or that. Nevertheless, Sir, since assuming office as Minister for Labour, I have received a steady stream of letters from shop assistants outlining their grievances and asking that some sort of protective legislation be devised to assist them. These grievances, Sir, can be summarised very simply: that their contracts of service are so vague that they never know exactly what rights they have under them; that their employers make all sorts of deductions from their salaries, especially when they wish to resign and they have asked that their wages be settled in full; that their wages are seldom paid regularly; that their hours of work are too long; and that holidays or sick leave are grudgingly given. And they have asked particularly, Sir, that they should be given the right to have their complaints settled in the Labour Court. All these grievances will be removed when the Bill before this House becomes law. The opportunity has also been taken to include earlier legislation for shop assistants, namely, the Weekly Holidays Ordinance and the Seats for Shop Assistants Ordinance. Sir, it is Government's intention to commit this Bill to a Select Committee and any comments that hon. Members may have on this Bill will, of course, be fully considered by the Select Committee when appointed. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure this Charter of Rights for shop assistants will be hailed with satisfaction by shop assistants all over Singapore. It is common knowledge, Sir, that shop assistants are being made to work at present from anything up to 9 to 12 hours a day; in some cases up to 13 hours a day. Consequently they get very little time off for healthy recreation or relaxation. This Bill, Sir, seeks to limit the working hours of shop assistants to 8 or, in certain cases, to 9 hours a day at contracted wages, and the maximum fixed per week is 44 hours in normal cases. Sir, this Bill also seeks to uplift the status of shop assistants in Singapore from that of mere machines, used for profit earning for employers, to that of human beings. This Bill, Sir, as also the Clerks Employment Bill which had its Second Reading yesterday, goes to prove that the Labour Front Coalition Government is continuously seeking to better the lot of the working class, and no matter what amount of propaganda is made by certain Members of the Opposition who seek to set themselves up as champions of the working class, I am sure this fact will not go into hiding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only two points I wish to make. The first refers to clause 37 (1) on the subject of an additional half-day holiday for shop assistants, theatre and restaurant employees. There is often a considerable difference between the hours of working of shop assistants and restaurant employees, the latter, in some cases, working either wholly or mainly in the evenings. In this sub-clause, therefore, in line 3 on page 11 of the Bill the words, "every shop assistant employed therein shall be allowed in each week an additional holiday of one half-day commencing at such hour in the afternoon as may be fixed by the Minister", may mean, unless the words "in the afternoon" are omitted, that some restaurant employees will get another full day's holiday per week instead of a half holiday, which I do not think is the intention of this Bill. This is a matter which will have to be looked into further in Select Committee. Secondly, I must draw the attention of the Minister once again to clauses 48 to 50 regarding the very wide powers given to inspectors. Yesterday I questioned, in respect of similar clauses in the Clerks Employment Bill, the need in clause 48 to "enter without previous notice at any hour of the day or night any place where he has reason to believe any shop assistant is employed". And I also queried the omission in clause 50 (a) of a proviso to be found in section 9 (2) of the present Weekly Holidays Ordinance that "no person shall be compellable to answer any question if the answer may tend directly or indirectly to incriminate". Sir, I asked the Hon. the Chief Minister to justify the very wide powers being given to inspectors and yesterday he omitted to give me a reply. I hope that he will do so today. Mr Lim Yew Hock rose -

In reply?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out to the Member for Tanglin that clauses 48 to 50 were taken from the Labour Ordinance which was approved in the previous session of the Legislative Assembly? The operation of these two sections in the Labour Ordinance has been done in a very fair and just manner and no complaints have been received by the Government in regard to any unjust operation. But in view of the representations made by the hon. Member, the points which he has raised will, of course, be duly considered by Government in Select Committee.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Shop Assistants Employment Bill be referred to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Shop Assistants Employment Bill be referred to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also move, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Shop and Office Employees Bill in the last Session of the Legislative Assembly, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 6 of 1956, be referred to the Select Committee on the Shop Assistants Employment Bill. Sir, I explained yesterday the reason for this motion. It is to enable the Select Committee to be appointed to have the benefit of the deliberations of that Select Committee.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Shop and Office Employees Bill in the last Session of the Legislative Assembly, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 6 of 1956, be referred to the Select Committee on the Shop Assistants Employment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 1 of the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Chapter 214), resolves that the aforesaid Ordinance shall continue in force for a further period of one year commencing on the 8th day of December, 1956. Sir, on five previous occasions this Ordinance has come up before the Legislature of this colony for its continuance and has been approved each time for a period of one year. My motion now seeks to extend the continuance of this Ordinance for a further period of one year as from the 8th of December, 1956. This Ordinance gives the Minister for Commerce and Industry powers to make orders prohibiting the import and export of goods. However, let me assure Members that, in keeping with our free trade policy, these powers are used very sparingly, and except for a comparatively narrow field, most imports are placed on the open general licence and exports are freely licensed. The powers of control, however, come in useful in regulating imports for balance of payment reasons, especially from hard-currency areas, but here again all essential and many semi-essential goods are licensed freely. These powers also provide a useful check for purposes of disease control in connection with the import of plants, animals and meats. Hon. Members will recall that these powers were used a few months ago to prohibit the importation of pin-tables and similar amusement machines. In the export field the powers under this Ordinance are used to keep a check on the export of strategic materials and essential items in short supply in Singapore. At present, controls on exports are very few in number. It is, however, necessary for the Minister to have such powers of control, and the Trade Advisory Council agrees with this view. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on receiving the assurance of the Minister that these powers will be used sparingly and with the advice of the Trade Advisory Council, I am not opposing the motion before the House. This morning I read a rather alarming report about rubber exports to China. A trade mission has left for China from Singapore and the Federation, and has concluded deals in rubber for export to China. If the report in the Press is correct - that Government requires a guarantee from the exporter that this rubber will not be used for war purposes - how is the exporter to know how that commodity will be used in China? It is impossible for an exporter here to give any guarantee or surety. On the other hand, Sir, all these years rubber has been exported through the United Kingdom to Russia. Then why is this guarantee required from exporters that the rubber exported to China will not be used for war purposes? As I have said, it is impossible for exporters to know to what uses the rubber will be put. I hope the Government will not try and put obstacles in the export and import trade. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

In reply?

Yes, Sir. Sir, the Member for Telok Ayer says that he will not oppose this motion because I have said that these powers will be used sparingly and with the advice of the Trade Advisory Council. Sir, that is not correct. I have not said that these powers will be used with the advice of the Trade Advisory Council. The discretion lies solely with the Minister, Sir, and no Minister is going to give up that discretion if he has to exercise it for the benefit of the country. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to refer the hon. Member to section 4 (2) of the Ordinance which says: "Any order made by the Minister under this section shall as soon as possible after the making thereof be laid before the Legislative Assembly and if at the next meeting of the Legislative Assembly after the order is laid before it a resolution is passed annulling the order or any part thereof the whole order or such part thereof as the case may be shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." If, Sir, any hon. Member dislikes any order made by the Minister, he has the right to move a motion annulling the order that the Minister has made at the next sitting of the Assembly when it is tabled. However, Sir, in normal matters we do consult the Trade Advisory Council, but it is not an assurance that I can give as a matter of right. The hon. Member also raised the point about Government demanding a guarantee that the rubber exported to China will not be used for war purposes. Sir, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this Government can take a bit of credit for trying to get the ban on rubber exports to China removed. Sir, in keeping with the requirements of the United Nations Organisation, we have to get statements as to the end uses of the rubber that is being shipped to China. It is not a guarantee, in the real sense of a guarantee, from a shipper. It is a requirement that the shipper should give us the name of the ultimate user and the purpose for which the rubber is going there. He need not specifically state that it is going for tyre manufacture or something like that, so long as he states that it is going there for a purpose which is peaceful, and not connected with the production of war materials and so on. Sir, it is not a guarantee in the form that we hold the shipper responsible for the guarantee, but, of course, if it is found that the shipper has purposely made a false declaration, then there are penalties laid out in the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 1 of the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Chapter 214), resolves that the aforesaid Ordinance shall continue in force for a further period of one year commencing on the 8th day of December, 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That this Assembly, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246), approves the reclamation by Messrs. John I. Thornycroft and Company Limited as agents of the Government, at the expense of the said Messrs. John I. Thorny-croft and Company Limited and subject to an indemnity to be previously given by the said Messrs. John I. Thornycroft and Company Limited to the Government against all claims in any manner arising out of or in connection with such reclamation or the work thereof, and subject to such other conditions as the Governor may impose, of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 20,000 square feet adjoining Lot 571-1, Mukim XXV, at Tanjong Rhu as delineated on plans which have been approved by the Director of Public Works and are deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. This motion is the result of an application by Messrs. John I. Thornycroft and Company Limited for permission to reclaim part of the foreshore and sea-bed adjacent to and north of their shipyard at Tanjong Rhu. The company proposes to construct a slipway and sea-wall on the seaward side of this reclamation. Under section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance, no reclamation can be made of the foreshore or sea-bed without the sanction of this Assembly. The object of this motion is to give the requisite authority. The lessee will act as agents for the Government in making the reclamation, and the usual indemnity will be taken. When the reclamation is complete, the land will become Crown land and a lease will be issued to the company. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246), approves the reclamation by Messrs. John I. Thornycroft and Company Limited as agents of the Government, at the expense of the said Messrs. John I. Thorny-croft and Company Limited and subject to an indemnity to be previously given by the said Messrs. John I. Thornycroft and Company Limited to the Government against all claims in any manner arising out of or in connection with such reclamation or the work thereof, and subject to such other conditions as the Governor may impose, of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 20,000 square feet adjoining Lot 571-1, Mukim XXV, at Tanjong Rhu as delineated on plans which have been approved by the Director of Public Works and are deposited at the Land Office, Singapore.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $250,589 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. 47 of 1956. Sir, this is a small list of applications for supplementary vote. The reasons for the application are fully explained in the Sessional Paper and none call for additional comment. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

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

Schedule

Hon. Members, the summary of totals appears at page 8. Head 3- The sum of $2,000 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 4- The sum of $10 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 5- Question proposed, "That the sum of $10 for Head 5 stand part of the Schedule."

May I ask the Hon. the Financial Secretary what this $10 token vote is required for?

The $10 token vote under Head 5, Sir, is required to authorise the payment of revised salaries for General Clerical Service clerks on the colonial side of the Commissioner-General's Office.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $10 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 6- Question proposed, "That the sum of $20 for Head 6 stand part of the Schedule."

Can I know the difference between a $10 token vote and a $20 token vote? As far as I understand, normally a standard $10 token vote is given, but in this case it is different.

The authority of the Legislature, Sir, is required for any payment of public funds for which provision is not made in the Estimates. In this case, we are introducing a new salary scale for the General Clerical Service and for what is now called the Higher Clerical Service. Where funds are available, we ask for a token vote to authorise payment from the savings available. If funds are not available, we ask for the provision required to meet the charge for the year. In this particular case, authority is required to make payment under two items under Personal Emolument - one for the General Clerical Service and the other for the Higher Clerical Service - which explains the $20 token vote.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $20 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 7- The sum of $932 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The sum of $565 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9- The sum of $10 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 10- The sum of $20 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $20 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12- The sum of $45,425 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 13- The sum of $10 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14- The sum of $30 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- The sum of $10 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- The sum of $317 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17- The sum of $29,192 for Head 17 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 $30 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20- The sum of $10 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21- The sum of $22,797 for Head 21ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- The sum of $790 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 23- The sum of $273 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24- The sum of $4,930 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- The sum of $10 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26- The sum of $2,555 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27- The sum of $10 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 28- The sum of $4,784 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29- The sum of $20 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 30- The sum of $20 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 31- The sum of $20 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 32- The sum of $10 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 33- The sum of $10 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 34- The sum of $20 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 35- The sum of $10 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 36- The sum of $20 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37- The sum of $10 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 38- The sum of $1,153 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39- The sum of $20 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 40- The sum of $10 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 42- The sum of $655 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43- The sum of $10 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 44- The sum of $10 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45- The sum of $70 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46- The sum of $961 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 47- The sum of $10 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $10 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52- The sum of $190 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 53- The sum of $10 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54- The sum of $1,826 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55- The sum of $60 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56- The sum of $5,030 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $10 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58- The sum of $580 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59- The sum of $510 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60- The sum of $20 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 61- The sum of $10 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 63- The sum of $24,255 for Head 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 65- The sum of $100,819 for Head D 65 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $250,589 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $250,589 ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I beg to 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 $250,589 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. 47 of 1956," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $250,589 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. 47 of 1956.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, in accordance with paragraph (2) of Standing Order 61, resolves that the Financial Statements for the year 1954, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1956, together with the Report of the Director of Audit, Malaya, thereon, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1956, should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Sir, the Financial Statements for 1954, together with the Director of Audit's Report, were referred to the Public Accounts Committee by a resolution of this Assembly during its last Session on the 7th of March, 1956. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee was tabled as Sessional Paper No. L.A. 8 of 1956. The Report stated that it had not been possible for the Committee to conclude its investigations during the Session and recommended that the accounts and the Director of Audit's Report should be referred once more to the Public Accounts Committee after the start of the new Session of the Assembly. The object of this motion, Sir, is to give effect to this recommendation. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with paragraph (2) of Standing Order 61, resolves that the Financial Statements for the year 1954, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1956, together with the Report of the Director of Audit, Malaya, thereon, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1956, should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion which stands in my name reads as follows: That this House is gravely concerned over the recent arrests of trade union and civic leaders and the dissolution of two societies, and deplores the arbitrary manner of the Government's action. Since this motion was tabled, a number of developments have taken place which have made my motion out of date. There has been the dissolution of the Chinese Middle School Students Union and the arrest and detention under the Public Security Ordinance of the President of the Chinese Middle School Students Union and of an Executive Committee member of the People's Action Party, who is also an Assistant Secretary of the Shop and Factory Workers Union. However, the substance of this challenge against the action of the Government is the same. When we debated the Governor's Address on 5th September, and gave this Government a unanimous vote of confidence because it was going to call an All-Party conference to plan tactics for the next Merdeka talks and to plan tactics in case the talks failed, few of us realised that, in fact, a new phase had opened in the political life of Singapore. We did not know then that there had been a radical change in the policy and methods of the Labour Front Coalition Government. The first sign of that radical change was the arrest, under banishment orders, of six prominent trade union and civic leaders on 18th September, followed on the 19th by the dissolution of the Women's Federation and the Chinese Brass Gong Musical Society. There was not the slightest pretext for any of these arbitrary acts. It came out of the blue. However, we gave the Government the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they might not have intended this as an act of provocation. But an emergency sitting of the Legislative Assembly asked for by my Party was firmly refused. Before the next sitting of the Assembly, the Government had moved again, this time against the Chinese Middle School Students Union, and a day before the Assembly was due to sit, against a Committee member of the People's Action Party. We might have doubted before whether these acts were those of wild suppression or calculated provocation, but there is very little doubt now in our minds as to what the Government's intentions are. It is clear that there must have been months of deliberate and calculated planning for this great purge. The old phase ended when the former Chief Minister departed for Cathay, seeking inspiration and knowledge probably to return with tales more wondrous than those of Marco Polo. After his resignation on 7th June, the Chief Ministership was on the 8th June taken over by the Member for Havelock, who said that his was a caretaker government whose only function was to carry on till the next Merdeka talks. It is quite clear now that, from the time the former Chief Minister left Singapore, all talk of the caretaker nature of this Government ceased. In fact, it culminated with a declaration in last month's debate that the Government was not a caretaker one. The Government had decided that it was going to take care of itself. Unable to compete with the vigorous and militant movements that the last general elections had set into motion, they knew that they faced certain defeat in the next elections. They have no organisation, no core of party workers and party cadres, no intellectual content in their Party. At least let this be said for the last Chief Minister: he believed that all these handicaps, and the lack of organisation, could be overcome by the sheer force of a dynamic personality, widely publicised, and that if he got Merdeka, then he was confident he could beat rival organisations. Unfortunately, he did not get Merdeka, but it saved him the discomfiture of having that illusion shattered. The present Chief Minister is a much more prosaic, mundane and matter-of-fact man. He is more like his Ministers. He knew that this was not the way to win, and that even if he wanted to do it he could not. But he was a plotter. He could plan, and he took us all for a ride! But to plot, you must have people to plot with, people with the sinews to give you strength where you lack the strength. So inevitably they became embroiled with their colonial masters as fellow conspirators to use the instruments which their colonial masters had forged over the years to maintain their rule over this colonial territory. But, of course, to conceal this they boldly stepped forward in front. Once embarked on this course of suppression, defeat at the next polls becomes an absolute certainty instead of a mere probability, unless all Opposition rallying points are destroyed to ensure no organised challenge at the next elections. Having already exposed their designs thus far, it was idle for them to go back and pretend that they were just innocent good Democrats led astray by the British. Theirs was an irrevocable decision, a decision which has set in train events the end of which we may not know for some time. But with all the mass meetings and rallies which are being held and in which they are being denounced in no uncertain terms, and the mass signature campaigns and a few other methods of mass publicity and education, they are being reduced from "colonial stooges" to "running dogs"-

Order. The hon. Member, I think, is now embarking on unparliamentary language. The words "stooges" and "running dogs" cannot, of course, be used in this Assembly with reference to Members. Further I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to Standing Order 31 (6) which reads: "No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member." The Member for Tanjong Pagar is inclined to make direct imputations. I do not put it past the ingenuity of the hon. Member to make indirect imputations which perhaps may be in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I was misunderstood. I was not calling my hon. opponents on the other side either colonial stooges or running dogs. I was reporting what was being said at the mass meetings. I will always refer to them with the greatest of respect in this House, but I have to inform them that this is what they are being called at a series of mass meetings all over the town. An hon. Member: Who cares?

Who cares? Before this mass protest is over, I am quite sure, as far as the masses are concerned, my hon. opponents will be reduced to traitorous vermin, as indeed, I am told, all right-thinking people already know they are. There is only one way for survival now, and that is to suppress the organisations that are the instruments of this exposure and either banish or detain the key men working these organisations - from brass gong musical societies and women's federations to students unions, on to art associations, on to societies for the promotion of brotherly love and societies for the scratching of each other's backs, and, finally, if necessary, trade unions, and even political Parties. Of course, if only a good excuse could be found, it might be possible to deal with some of the trade unions organised by hostile militant groups. It might be too blatant an act at this moment to move directly against the People's Action Party and remove it from peaceful competition in the next elections, particularly if it has been correct, constitutional and proper in its actions. But take away all the supports, all the ground organisations that sustain the People's Action Party, and then you will have removed the sinews of the Party. Then you might even allow that Party to compete and hobble along in the next elections. Who are happy at this? I do not say that my hon. opponents on the other side are seeking these allies, but they are getting these allies. The first to congratulate them was no less a person than the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself, the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd. September 3, from London: "The Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd, in a broadcast last night on Malaya, said that the Communist snake has been scotched but not killed. In an all-over review of progress in the Commonwealth, the Colonial Secretary said: 'We shall soon see an independent Malaya within the Commonwealth. Here, as in Singapore, courageous and competent Ministers are facing up to their problems in this vital corner of the free world.' " The last time he paid a compliment to the Chief Minister of Singapore, as a very intelligent man, the right honourable gentleman had reason to regret it subsequently, particularly on the day the Merdeka talks broke down in London. And look what has happened to the Chief Minister who received so deep a compliment from his master! But they knew that it was a foolish thing to have said, and the next day, when the Colonial Office was asked whether they approved of their minions in Singapore, they declined to comment. London, September 24: U.P. "The Colonial Office firmly declined any comment on Singapore. It was explained that there could be no official reaction to what is regarded purely as a matter of local politics and that comment from London was neither desirable nor useful." The right honourable gentleman should have been wiser to do that from the beginning, instead of giving such a generous bouquet to the hon. gentlemen opposite. Then there was the ex-Servicemen's Association. They had a luncheon. Then there was the Bishop of Singapore. Then there was Mr Clayton, President of the European Chamber of Commerce that calls itself the Singapore Chamber of Commerce. Then the Americans - they had to come in. Washington, September 25: U.P. "Standard headline - Lim's anti-Red stand, Americans are impressed. American officials said yesterday they had been considerably impressed by the determined efforts of Singapore's energetic Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, to wipe out the Communist influence which has plagued the colony in recent years. They will be watching closely to see whether Lim Yew Hock can sustain the momentum of this drive against subversive elements which have fomented unrest and, at times, bloodshed in Singapore. State Department officials were impressed by the Singapore Government's sudden arrest of seven pro-Communist workers and the Chief Minister's subsequent emphatic rejection of protest against the action. However, it is not expected that the powerful subversive elements in Singapore will give in without a struggle, and there is great interest in what moves they may make in an effort to regain face. American officials hope that Lim Yew Hock and his Government will be able to maintain their campaign to rid the labour and education fields of trouble-making elements." Not to be outdone, the Aussies came in. "Aussies praise Mr Lim Sydney, October 1: Reuter. 'For Australians the most heartening news from Asia for many a long moon has been the vigorous action taken against Communist subversion by Singapore Government,' the Sydney Morning Herald said today, and declared in an editorial: `The Chief Minister of Singapore has made it abundantly plain that he won't have anything to do with New China. Mr Lim Yew Hock has acted with a boldness and resolution which has astonished his friends and confounded his critics.' The newspaper said: `For a Chinese Minister in a substantially Chinese community it was courageous indeed.' " Sir, I am not saying that there has been no local support for the Hon. the Chief Minister. He had the T.U.C. come out and support him. But if I may quote the comment of my friend and colleague, my backseat driver, the General Secretary of the Shop and Factory Workers Union, "It is meaningless. It is like South Korea supporting Formosa. It is beneath comment." Then yesterday we read of a 15-man delegation representing 150 organisations and 150,000 people in Singapore coming to the Chief Minister to pledge their support. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Hear, hear indeed! They were led by Mr Chua Hoe Ann, the man who led the overseas Chinese delegation to Formosa to pledge the support of the overseas Chinese for Chiang Kai-shek in his fight to regain the Chinese mainland against the lawfully constituted Government of the People's Republic of China. In a P.R.O. release dated 2nd October, the Government was disingenuous enough to publish a list of the 150 organisations which this 15-man delegation was supposed to represent. Amongst them - I do not wish to smear organisations with one broad brush - there are good organisations like the Singapore Bank Employees Union, for whom sometimes I acted as adviser, and the Army Civil Service Union, in which I have some friends as officers. But let us look at the majority of these 150 organisations: The O.C. Kindergarten. What is the O.C. Kindergarten? Are all the little toddling infants in this Kindergarten counted in the 150,000? The Tong Tat Library. Is every person who reads a book from this library accounted for in the 150,000? The G.G. Association. What is it all about? The Hwa Keow Jin Ai Sia, the Koon Teok Siah - a motley collection of semi-defunct organisations. The people have never heard of them before. Sir, by all means let us fight propaganda by counter propaganda. That is part of the democratic process. If your opponents start a signature campaign, you start one. That is commendable. If your opponents say they represent 50,000 people, you get 15 people to come and say they represent 150,000. But let us do it intelligently. Let us not make a mockery and a farce of this thing. What is the end of all this? Repression, Sir, is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course, with constant repetition, you get more and more brazen in the attack and in the scope of the attack. First, the conscience is disturbed by a sense of guilt. You attack only those whom your Special Branch can definitely say are Communists. They have no proof except what X told Z who told Alpha who told Beta who told the Special Branch. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say are actively sympathising with and helping the Communists, although they are not Communists themselves. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say, although they are not Communists or fellow travellers, yet, by their intransigent opposition to any collaboration with colonialism, they encourage the spirit of revolt and weaken constituted authority and thereby, according to the Special Branch, they are aiding the Communists. Then finally, since you have gone that far, you attack all those who oppose you. Repression is an easy substitute for hard work and organisation. To compete with a rival organisation, you have to win mass support, to help the people solve their problems of living. But instead of building up an organisation, it is much easier just to have a collection of friends to contest the elections, with no organisation. Then, by a fluke, you may find yourself in power. You take over the organisation of the colonial power, the government machinery, the instruments of policy - the administration, the police, broadcasting and all the "gimmicks" of a modern colonial State. Then you use this machinery with the connivance and concurrence of your colonial masters against rival organisations. It is easier than building up an organisation of your own. All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil and quiet - on the surface. Then an intimidated Press - and some sections of the Press here do not need intimidation because they have very friendly owners - the Press and the Government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict it. It has happened before in Asia. It happened in China and Indo-China. First, you knock out your opponents who compete with you, peacefully and constitutionally, because they are more vigorous, because you cannot compete with them, because they are better organised than you are. When everything becomes peaceful and tranquil, complacency sets in, and degeneration begins. The Labour Front Organising Secretary went to the inaugural ceremony of the Women's Federation where he made a fighting speech. He said: "We must fight against corruption, all forms of corruption, not just anti-yellow culture." He termed moral corruption "the appeals of the fleshpots of life". He said, "We must fight against political corruption. Physical corruption", he said, "is a weapon which you use against your opponent by threatening either his life or the liberty of his person." That, he said, was undemocratic and bad. The Communists were the people who engaged in such forms of physical corruption, and he condemned them. He said also that we must fight economic corruption, bribery and all the rottenness of things. In Indo-China and China, once they crushed the open stimulus, that challenge to them to increase their efficiency, they slumped and slowly became decadent and corrupt. They went to seed. Finally, the organisation on which they depended to maintain themselves in power, the machinery of government, also sank. By their example, the Civil Service went to seed. They became corrupt and degenerate. No initiative, no imagination. Instead of becoming instruments to implement the policies and solve the economic and social problems of the people, they became instruments of petty oppression. Slowly cracks began to appear on the edifice of government, until finally the whole structure collapsed as the underground opposition, which had been strengthening, rose up and struck down all these institutions which the people had regarded as instruments of their oppression and had recognised as the reason for their misery and misfortune. Finally the whole world of these men in power came to an end, a dismal and a disgraceful end. Then if they were unlucky, according to the American Press, they might get buried alive. Or they might get hung up in some market place, where the people would go and publicly curse them to their grave, egged on by fanatical party tyrants. But if they were lucky, then they fled to some convenient island. There, if they could win or retain the support of their former masters and collaborators, like Chiang Kai-shek and his cronies, they could continue to live in the comfort and ease to which they had grown accustomed, sustained and supported by the Americans and, what is most important, protected by them and the Seventh Fleet. I do not wish unduly to depress my opponents on the other side of the House. They have about one chance in a million of success with this instrument. If they could suppress with the fanatical and religious belief that God and right are on their side - just as we are told the Communists sometimes believe that God and right are on their side and they suppress their opponents - then, with a stifled Opposition, they could perhaps strengthen their organisation and translate their political theories and beliefs into action and give the people the better life that they seek. But they can only do this if they have a core of men of ability, integrity and courage, men imbued with high ideals and convictions, driving forward with relentless zeal and energy derived from their convictions. They need a whole team of men who can methodically and systematically plan to bring about your prosperous egalitarian society. Then you can allow the Communists to come back and compete in the elections, after you have strengthened yourself and removed your economic and social ills to that point where you feel fairly confident that you have the people, if not on your side, at least not against you. But to do this in Malaya, you will have to fight and subdue those groups and interests which have come out to support you initially because they believe you have come out to protect their vested interests - all your Chambers of Commerce. Let me read to the Chief Minister what his action has done to the share market. Straits Times, September 24, 1956: "Lim's Policy Boosts Shares Once again last week the strength of the Singapore Share Market was centred in the industrial section which was very steady. An increased volume of business was written in this section particularly for investment purposes and by those buying in because they feel some of the crop of dividends due towards the end of the year will show healthy improvements." Then it goes on to analyse how throughout the week there was growing confidence: "The reason for the renewed strength of industries, which have taken months to pick up the millions of dollars slashed from their market value in April and May last year, is the firm stand being taken by the Lim Yew Hock Government against subversion and its rational approach to internal self government." An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Three cheers! Three cheers for all the shareholders and all the directors of companies! Three cheers for the Singapore Standard which, on 24th September, 1956, said: "Shares Firm On Renewed Confidence Increased Trading During This Week By a Market Correspondent. Malayan share markets, which have provided an accurate barometer of political events, last week reacted to the recent Government action against 'subversive' elements, resulting in a firm trend." These are the allies whom you will collect with you on this road to perdition. These are the men you will have to fight and subdue if you want to carry out your economic policies and bring about your egalitarian society. Can you fight these men when you depend upon them for your support? And chief amongst these are the British, their influential investors with friends in Parliament. Does anyone believe now, after Nasser and the Suez Canal - if anyone believed it before - that with a Britain fighting for survival as a world power by hanging on to her vital strategic interests (rubber, tin, gold dollars), that she will allow these vital economic interests to be subordinated to a higher political interest; to allow you to take over her rubber and tin earnings in order that you can raise the standard of living of the people in this country, in order that you can save it for democracy in this vital corner of the free world? Does anybody doubt what would happen to any government in Malaya with such a British Government, with troops right in the country and not in some Cyprus island hundreds of miles away? Perhaps I may be wrong. It may be that there might be a radical change of policy on the part of the British Government, a change of heart because Mr Gaitskell is different from Mr Eden, and will allow higher political motives to over-ride selfish economic motives. I may be wrong, too, about my hon. opponents on the other side of the House. Perhaps they are men of ability and integrity, with the courage of their convictions and tireless zeal born of these convictions. I was glad to hear the other day that some have even taken to youth leadership instead of lounging in hotel bars! But that is not a sufficient basis to start a social revolution. There is a revolution on in Malaya and there are two ways to meet it. The first, is to meet it militarily and suppress it by force - and the British have been doing it for eight years. The second is to control and regulate it. If the other side is prepared to compete and put forward their ideas and theories in a peaceful and constitutional manner, then they would give you the impetus to put your house in order, to compete. And if you fail and they succeed, because they are better organised and have worked better, then you have only yourself to blame if you lose, provided, as I have said, they fight in a peaceful and constitutional manner. But out of the blue the Government has moved to strike them down. It is the road to perdition. What I am asking the House to do is formally to deplore these arbitrary actions. But this motion in substance is a condemnation of the policy of suppression on which this Government has embarked, a policy of suppression without any pretext, done so blatantly and so crudely that they will lose even the Social Democrats to the other side, that they will lose the intellectuals to the other side. They will lose the people with a conscience and with a sense of fair play and decency. I do not know what the result of these moves will be in the immediate future. That depends upon the plans of the Council of Ministers, or perhaps a faction of the Council of Ministers. But I do know that if this policy of indiscriminate suppression is pursued, the ultimate result perhaps in 8 years, or perhaps in 10 years if that long, is a foregone conclusion. It has happened before in Asia and it is going to happen here again unless we learn the lesson from what has happened elsewhere in Asia. How long can you depend on the support of those whom eventually you must fight, because your economic interests conflict with theirs? How long can you keep bottled up a sense of grievance and discontent because of social and economic injustices? If the one chance in a million works out, then no man will cheer this Government more than I will. Perhaps, in fact, they have a sense of mission in life, and all these things are done in the belief that God and right are on their side, that they are doing bad things for a good cause, that, eventually, they will do good things for a good cause when conditions have been put right. But as I see it, bad things for some bogus good cause will lead to more bad things for even worse causes, until slowly the whole structure of this society will crumble into dust. I would ask my hon. opponents on the other side to weigh the odds carefully, and not follow what the Special Branch tells them, because they are police experts, they are the Sherlock Holmes who pick up the threads and build up their theories of subversive activity. Many of them do not understand what this is about. I am not saying that if one understands it, then one necessarily has all the answers to it. But one is more likely to be able to meet the problem in the right way. This is a fight in Asia, a fight of ideas, a fight for a better life. Whoever organises better and provides a better life for the people gets the support of the people. I agree with the hon. Gentlemen opposite that if any act is done to overthrow a government by force, that act must be suppressed. But if we say that we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then, in the name of all the gods that we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework. If you do not, then you will face outright opposition, an armed revolt, and eventually an armed victory. Then the whole social fabric of this society will collapse. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. The only reason the Chief Minister has given for the recent arrests and dissolution of three organisations is that they were "in the best interests of the people". That phrase is very familiar to the people of Singapore. They have heard it many times in the past from the mouths of colonial officials who wanted to justify colonial acts of repression. The people of India heard this phrase from the mouths of British imperial viceroys who tried to persuade them that 150 years of cruel British exploitation and repression of the people of lndia was "in the best interests of the people". The people of Indonesia had also bee n told by their former Dutch colonial masters that Dutch repression was "in the best interests of the people". So did the people of Indo-China hear it from the mouths of the French colonialists. The same phrase was taken up by Asian Quislings who tried to justify the suppression instigated by their colonial backseat drivers. And it is the bitter fate of the people of Singapore to hear this phrase of colonial Fascist double-talk from the mouth of the elected Chief Minister. The Chief Minister can only show that his action is really in the interests of the people by proving his charges against the arrested persons by democratic processes in a fair public trial. He has refused to do this. He has chosen instead to repeat, like a well-trained colonial parrot, that the Government's actions are "in the best interests of the people". The Chief Minister has claimed, Sir, that he has acted solely in accordance with the law. What law? The repressive laws of colonialism! One of the first things that a leader who claims to guide the people to Merdeka should do is to safeguard the people against the use of repressive colonial legislation. That is what Nehru did in India and he spent 11 years in British prisons for doing so. That is also what Sukarno did in Indonesia. But that is not what our Chief Minister does. Instead of fighting the use of repressive colonial laws, he himself uses them against his own people. The Chief Minister has denied that he has made a private agreement with Mr Lennox-Boyd behind the `backs of the people of Singapore. In other words, he denies that the recent arbitrary arrests and the dissolution of peaceful and lawfully constituted societies form part of the price he has agreed to pay to the Colonial Office for spurious constitutional concessions at the next Merdeka talks. But the whole pattern of his Government's policy since he took office makes it difficult for the people of Singapore to accept his denial. The P.A.P., Sir, has consistently striven to unite all anti-colonial forces in Singapore so that at the next Merdeka talks we can present a solid and united front to the Colonial Office. We have repeatedly called for a Merdeka convention of all anti-colonial forces in Singapore. But some people have got the impression, by the way the Chief Minister has started to attack anti-colonial groups and individuals, that the next Merdeka convention of anti-colonial forces will only be held inside Changi Prison. The so-called Middle Road Group of Trade Unions has also consistently striven in the past year to achieve unity in the trade union movement. These efforts, too, have been sabotaged by the Chief Minister's American friends in the I.C.F.T.U. like Mr George Weaver. We sought the unity of all anti-colonial forces in Singapore because we knew that this was the only way to ensure success at the next Merdeka talks. We gave the Chief Minister a vote of confidence because we hoped he would do the right thing to prepare for the next Merdeka talks. We expected that those who sincerely wanted Merdeka would take steps to strengthen the forces of Merdeka - the anti-colonial groups, organisations and individuals of Singapore; but the Chief Minister seemed bent on a policy of destroying the very basis of Merdeka, the democratic and constitutional anti-colonial forces of Singapore. His Government struck off the register seven Chinese school teachers without proving any charges against them. Then came the arrest of Tan Lay Boon, a prominent trade unionist. Again there was no attempt to produce any concrete evidence to justify the arrest. Then suddenly on the 18th and 19th of September came the outrage against democratic liberties and freedom of association. Seven persons, including prominent trade unionists and leaders of civic organisations, were arrested under banishment orders and one detained under the Public Security Ordinance. The Women's Federation and the Chinese Brass Gong Musical Society were dissolved. Meanwhile, the permanent colonial officials in the Ministry of Education, aided by the internal security boys, were preparing the Minister for Education to suppress the students' movement; and on the 24th came the Minister for Education's bellicose announcement banning the Chinese Middle School Students Union. On the night of 3rd October, Soon Loh Boon, Chairman of the Students' Union, was detained. On the following morning Mr Chia Ek Tian, one of our Assistant Secretaries in the Union, was also detained. Our challenge to the Chief Minister to produce concrete evidence to prove the charges against the arrested persons and the dissolved societies has been arrogantly turned down. Only vague alarmist allegations of Communism and Communist inspiration have been made. Some of the statements made by the Minister for Education make even the witch-hunting Senator McCarthy of America look reasonable and slightly more educated in comparison. At least Senator McCarthy never carried the logic of his anti-Communism to the same extent as our Minister for Education. According to our Minister for Education, the collective study groups among Chinese students are Communist, because the Communists also have such study groups. By this logic, study group movements throughout the world must be Communist. The Chinese Communists eat rice. Our Minister for Education also sometimes eats rice. Therefore, he too must be a Communist! Englishmen prefer their tea at4 p.m. Asians who drink their tea at 4 p.m. are therefore Englishmen! Americans drive about in American cars. Harry Lee also drives an American car. Therefore, Harry Lee is an American! Self-criticism is practised by the Communists. Therefore, nobody must criticise himself! We must all pretend to be saints. Truly we have a wonderfully educated person in our Minister for Education! His logic is simply shattering. It has already completely shattered him in the eyes of the public. Hysterical allegations, systematic propagation of anti-Communist hysteria - such are the typical methods employed by anti-progressive and anti-democratic forces the world over. The only way to expose these methods is to demand again and again for the proof of these allegations by democratic process in an open court of law. I challenge the Hon. the Chief Minister to prove the charges against the arrested persons and the organisations concerned by democratic process in open court, or else be branded forever as a witch-hunting politician who is playing the Devil's own game with the destinies of the people of Singapore. I challenge him to deny that he has not made a shameful backdoor deal with Mr Lennox-Boyd and the Colonial Office to feed the constitutional anti-colonial forces of Singapore to the gaping jaws of colonial repression in return for a sham Merdeka which will be safe for colonial vested interests. Who was responsible for the arrests? The Press quotes the Chief Minister as saying that colonial officials were not responsible for the arrests but that he and the other elected Ministers were responsible for the decision taken. Whom is the Chief Minister trying to bluff? Everybody knows that internal security is controlled by the Chief Secretary who sits beside him and that the recent repressive measures could therefore only have been taken on the initiative and instigation of colonial officials. How loyal of the Chief Minister to keep out of public sight his colonial back-seat drivers! He will, no doubt, be included in the next Queen's Birthday Honours List! But the people elected him not to protect colonial officials from public censure but to protect the people against the actions of colonial officials. The Chief Minister proudly talks about "My Government"! Whom is he trying to bluff? Everybody knows that under the Rendel Constitution the Colonial Office controls all the key positions and retains ultimate control. If the elected Ministers think that the present Government is their Government, why reopen the next Merdeka talks? Has the Chief Minister and his elected colleagues forgotten so quickly that the previous Chief Minister declared that the Rendel Constitution was unworkable, a point of view with which they then agreed? The Chief Minister has declared that the people of Singapore support the Government's acts of repression. I challenge him to have the moral and political courage to put that statement to strict proof thereof. Let him organise a public referendum of the electorate of Singapore and let him promise to treat the result of the referendum as a vote of confidence in his Government. We say with every confidence that the vast majority of the people of Singapore will declare against him. I have already challenged the Chief Minister to go back to his own constituency in Havelock. He knows what their verdict will be. Mr Speaker, Sir, who actually supports the Chief Minister in his acts of repression? The public have not failed to note that the Straits Times, that mouthpiece of British vested interests in this country and purveyor of cheap sensationalism and hysterical, unreasoning anti-Communism, regards the Chief Minister as a great hero. The Chief Minister has been described by this paper as "A Man with a Mission" and "The Man who rose to the hour". Politically, Sir, I would be terribly embarrassed if this British-owned paper ever said a good word about me or my colleagues. We think that it is perfectly natural for a paper like the Straits Times, representing reactionary colonial vested interests, to blast the P.A.P. and Middle Road every day as a matter of religious duty. We would be very surprised if it did not, for it is our declared aim to bring to an end the political dominion of British vested interests in Singapore. The Straits Times only favours those who, in its opinion, are playing the colonial game, and the Straits Times has become an enthusiastic supporter of the Chief Minister. Further comment is unnecessary. According to Press reports, our Chief Minister has also become a hero in the eyes of Washington. All Asia knows that Washington is cold to the Nehrus and Sukarnos and Nassers, but in our Chief Minister, Washington apparently sees a new Syngman Rhee, or a new Chiang Kai-shek in the making. The people of Singapore cannot be proud that their elected Chief Minister should find himself in the company of the friends of these discredited stool-pigeons of foreign imperialisms in Asia. Does the Chief Minister have any doubt that the people of this country would very much prefer him to be in the illustrious company of great Asian liberators like Nehru, Sukarno and Nasser? But to be worthy of the company of a Nehru, our Chief Minister would have to be prepared to go to jail fighting against the colonial repression of his people. But our Chief Minister has chosen, unlike Nehru, to become an instrument of colonial repression of democratic rights. The Chief Minister has threatened the anti-colonial forces in Singapore that he will make further arbitrary arrests if necessary. He is making a fatal and suicidal political blunder if he thinks that he can cow the anti-colonial people of Singapore into submission. We are not afraid. We are not frightened of such threats. We are not frightened because the genuine anti-colonial Merdeka forces of Singapore are not confined to a few individuals. The Merdeka movement has struck deep roots in the hearts and minds of people of all races and all classes. A hundred Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hocks cannot destroy this movement. A hundred Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hocks will only find their political graves in trying to destroy this invincible movement for freedom and democratic rights for the people of this country. This movement is an organic part of the mighty current of the Asian revolution. The greatest military powers of the Western world have had to retreat before this invincible current, and the Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hock is nothing in comparison. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the elected Members of this House to consider carefully before they vote on this motion, for the people who elected us are watching us very closely. How we vote and what we say is going to determine our political future. We must say clearly which side we are on - on the side of the people of Singapore in the fight for democratic rights, or on the side of ill-concealed colonial repression. I also ask Members not to be diverted by what the Chief Minister will say to this motion. I can tell them in advance what he will say. He will cry Communism. He will quote reports from his political advisers in the Special Branch. But I will guarantee this: whatever the Chief Minister might say, he will not offer to prove his charges by democratic process in an open court, and because of this, what he says will possess no value at all. I will also call the attention of elected Members of this Assembly to a resolution of the Civil Rights Convention in which were represented 106 trade unions and other public organisations, representing in all about 200,000 people. This Convention has asked our Assemblymen to make the following demands to the Government: (a) That all the arrested persons be either given a fair public trial or be unconditionally released. (b) That an impartial public tribunal be appointed to go into the charges made against the three dissolved societies, and that if the Government is not prepared to do this, the ban on all these organisations be immediately lifted. (c) That Government give an assurance to the public that no further arbitrary arrests will be made and that freedom of association and constitutional organisation will be scrupulously respected. (d) That the Labour Front Coalition Government will strive, by all possible means, to strengthen and consolidate the unity of all genuine and constitutional anti-colonial forces in Singapore as an essential pre-requisite to the success of the next Merdeka talks. These are just and democratic demands. We elected Members of this Assembly can only ignore them at our political peril. One last warning to the Chief Minister. My Party and my Union have already said that we will use all possible peaceful and constitutional means to protest against Government's action, and the Chief Minister has assured a delegation from my Union that he will afford every facility for peaceful and constitutional protest. I shall hold the Chief Minister to his promise for his own good. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move an amendment to the motion before the House. I submit copies of this amendment. Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Will the Chief Minister please read his amendment?

Mr Speaker, I rise to move, "to leave out all the words after the word 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof the following words, 'takes note of the recent arrests of six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one person under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the dissolution of two societies, and welcomes the strong action taken by the Government against subversive elements in Singapore.' " Copies of Chief Minister's amendment distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amended motion, therefore, reads: "That this House takes note of the recent arrests of six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one person under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the dissolution of two societies, and welcomes the strong action taken by the Government against subversive elements in Singapore." Sir, I had made it clear in the Press that the Government would justify its actions against subversive elements and Communist-front organisations at this sitting of the Assembly, and this debate, Sir, will give an opportunity to the people of Singapore to have a clear picture of the political ideology of the various political Parties represented in this Assembly and of each and every Assemblyman. And I move my amendment in the fullest confidence that it will receive the full support of all Members who sincerely believe in and practise democracy. This Government does not care to have the support of those who claim to love Singapore, to owe loyalty to Singapore, and yet are doing their very best to destroy the security and well-being of the people of Singapore. This Government does not care to have the support of such people. It is better that such Assemblymen declare themselves here and now so that the people of Singapore can know them for what they are and not what they pretend to be. The Government ordered the arrests of six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one person under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the dissolution of two organisations; and these orders were executed on the 18th and the 19th of September. Since then, one further organisation has been dissolved and two other persons have been arrested under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The arrests were ordered on the grounds that the persons concerned had been taking part in subversive activities which definitely are not in the best interests and security of the people of Singapore; and the three organisations were dissolved because the Government is satisfied that they were Communist-front organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, some people have quite rightly asked me why the Government should have found it necessary to take this action when there is apparent peace and quiet in Singapore. May I add, Sir, that the Government has channels of information which are not normally at the disposal of the general public? They are not aware that this is a dangerous quiet. They are not aware that there has been a change in Communist strategy. There has been intensive penetration into a wide field of otherwise laudable activities which is building up a position of a powerful force that threatens the whole future of democratic government. The aim is to control the masses through united front, of workers through trade unions, of youth through students' unions, of peasants through farmers' associations, and attap-dwellers' associations, of the intelligentsia through teachers, literary and cultural organisations, of women through the women's federation, and of political Parties. The Government was confronted with this growing menace when it took office last June, but no action was taken because we were biding our time and were gathering more and more news intelligence before launching on our campaign. Last month, Sir, the Government faced its first Assembly sitting, and on the debate on the Governor's Address I made it very clear to the Assembly, among other things, the following: (1) I was personally not anxious to become Chief Minister, and still am not anxious, but that I took on this office, an onerous and difficult job, because I sincerely believed that it was required of me and that I had the confidence of the public; (2) This Government, I repeat, is not a caretaker Government in the accepted sense of the word. This Government is a caretaker Government in so far as its life is concerned. During its life the machinery of government will be in full swing, and whether we govern wisely or not time will tell; and (3) I assured hon. Members that during the intervening period before the reopening of the constitutional talks in London, this Government will do everything in its power to bring about a state of affairs that will not only be conducive to success but also in the best interests of the people of Singapore. The Government, Sir, was gratified to receive a unanimous vote of confidence, and this has made us more aware of our duty to the people of Singapore. In the discharge of this sacred duty, my colleagues and I are determined to stop the corruption of the people of Singapore by what is a vast secret society working for Communist domination. As I stated earlier, this Government is satisfied that the Women's Federation, the Chinese Brass Gong Musical Society and the Singapore Chinese Middle School Students' Union have become Communist-front organisations. They have, therefore, been dissolved and those who perverted these otherwise laudable associations to make them instruments of Communism must be checked and, if necessary, removed from our midst. Hence the arrests for banishment and detention. I would like, Sir, to assure hon. Members that this action was taken only after very lengthy and serious consideration, and once this decision has been taken, the Government intends to pursue relentlessly its action against subversive activities. The interests, the security and the welfare of the people of Singapore demand this of us, and we shall not fail them. Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the distortion of facts by our opponents, I find it necessary to repeat in this Assembly that the decision to take this action against subversive activities in the best interests of the people of Singapore rests with the elected Ministers. Although the question of internal security is in the portfolio of the Chief Secretary, the question of policy does not lie with him. It lies with the Council of Ministers and if the elected Government, which is in the majority in the Council, does not subscribe to any policy regarding internal security, the Chief Secretary is powerless to enforce it. My colleagues and I, Sir, therefore accept full responsibility for this action. We stand firm in our resolve and we face squarely any criticism, and even any abuse that is being hurled at us. Do not therefore blame the colonial officials. Put the blame where it is due, if we are indeed blameworthy. Do not blame the police and the Special Branch, for they are there to execute the orders of the Council of Ministers, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to their loyalty and to their devotion to duty. And because I categorically stated that the elected Ministers accepted full responsibility, our opponents were therefore deprived of the pleasure of hurling their abuse at the officials. They therefore directed their vile epithets at me, and called me a "colonial stooge". Sir, the very mention of these words recalls to my mind the meeting which I had with representatives of seven organisations who came to see me in connection with the Government's action. At that meeting, Sir, after listening patiently to their representations and after answering the points raised by them, I turned round to their leader and asked whether by a statement which he had made earlier he implied that I was a colonial stooge. Silence. Silence. I repeated this question three times and after much hesitation and whispered consultation he turned round to me and replied, "I must consult our members." These so-called champions of democracy have to have their thinking done for them! For nearly nine years have I served the people of Singapore in the Legislative Council and in this Assembly, and I would therefore leave it to the public to form their own judgment. I can say with a clear conscience that I am no colonial stooge. And my answer to my friends is "Thank God, I am no Communist stooge!" Hon. Members are aware that since this Government took strong action against subversive elements, my colleague the Minister for Education and I have received a number of death threats. Both of us have declared that we are not deterred by these threats. I repeat: this Government intends to fight subversive elements to the bitter end. I am not saying this with any sense of bravado. No, Sir. I am saying this with all solemnity, for it is a solemn task that this Government has set out to do - to wipe out subversive activities in the best interests of the people of Singapore. As against these death threats, Sir, I am glad to say that I have received a greater number of letters of congratulations and wholehearted support - not the 142 organisations referred to - but these are from men who signed their names.

Looking for a job!

No! And I have already written to them, Sir, thanking them for their support for our action, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking them once again and giving them the appreciation of this Government. Hon. Members will have read in the Press of the two interviews which I had given to representatives of the so-called Middle Road group, and I do not therefore propose to weary them with an account. Suffice it to say that they protested against our action which was in the best interests of the people of Singapore. Hon. Members will also have read in the Press of my receiving a delegation representing 142 organisations. This has been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar. They came to me, Sir, and handed to me signed pledges of support of our action against subversive elements. They came to me of their own accord. Because of the pledges that I had received, I took sustenance from their support and I have assured them, too, that the Government will carry on the fight to rid Singapore of subversive elements. Last week I received a letter from an organisation, loosely described as the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee, which claims to represent 95 trade unions. My office asked for a list of the names of the 95 trade unions which it alleges to claim, but to-date this information has not been supplied. This is most significant, and hon. Members can draw their own conclusions. Sir, these arrested persons have been described by their comrades as civic leaders and champions of Merdeka. Six of these persons are not local born. They owe their loyalty elsewhere. The remaining three persons, while local born, have been engaged in subversive activities aimed at the overthrow of democratic government. Merdeka indeed! Merdeka for whom? This is indeed a classic example of that specious and contemptible device - the greater the lie the greater the chance of it being put over. The people of Singapore desire to be masters of their own fate and have no intention of changing one master for another. Chia Ek Tian, Sir, was arrested on 2nd October under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance as the Government has good reasons to believe that he is involved in subversive activities. Chia Ek Tian is the Secretary of the Bukit Panjang Branch of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union. He is also a member of the Central Committee of the P.A.P. Representatives of the P.A.P. came to see me last Tuesday and I assured them that the action was not directed against the P.A.P. but because of Chia Ek Tian's individual activities. The P.A.P. issued a statement to the Press, and I quote therefrom: "That an executive member of a rival constitutional political party could be arrested and detained for two weeks pending a police report reflects the grave threat to personal rights and liberties under this Government. The harassing of one's political opponents by these extraordinary powers negatives the claim that the Government is fighting to establish democracy in Singapore." Does the P.A.P. suggest, Sir, that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance should not be applied to any executive member of a rival constitutional political Party, even though he is found to be taking part in subversion? Does the P.A.P. suggest that such executive member should be given free rein in his subversive activities which are detrimental to the security and well-being of the people of Singapore? This Government, as I have said many a time, intends to put an end to subversive activities of all persons, whoever they may be, even if they are members of the Labour Front. Let me repeat, Sir, that Chia Ek Tian was not arrested because he is an executive member of the P.A.P., but because of his individual activities. But the fact that he is a member of the Central Committee of the P.A.P., that he is the Secretary of the Bukit Panjang Branch of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union, is an indication to the public of the extent to which infiltration has taken place in these two organisations. While on this subject, Sir, I would like to repeat my assurance to the workers of Singapore that the Government's action is in no way aimed at the legitimate activities of democratic trade unions and trade unionists. The Government's policy has already been and will always be to support and assist all democratic trade unions. I would therefore ask the workers of Singapore not to be misled by the malicious lies of the so-called champions of Merdeka. Sir, this Government desires to express the gratitude of the people of Singapore to the Federation Chief Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, for his strong support of the Government's action against subversive elements. Knowing the Tunku as I do, Sir, I am sure he will render Singapore all possible assistance when called upon to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, no government can abdicate its duty to protect its citizens and it is in the execution of this duty that the Banishment Ordinance is invoked against these six persons who were not born in Singapore. These persons are enjoying our hospitality, and yet they were planning and conniving in subversive activities with' the sole intention of disrupting and destroying our way of life. To allow them to stay with the knowledge that the Government has of their vile activities would amount to condoning their evil work and betraying the trust the people of Singapore have imposed upon elected leaders and their elected Government. To fight the evil in our midst it is absolutely essential to use the special powers conferred on the Government by the Banishment Ordinance and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. I would like to assure hon. Members that these powers will only be used where my colleagues and I are fully satisfied that they are necessary in the best interests of the people of Singapore. We will exercise them with the utmost circumspection and with the keenest sense of responsibility to the individual as well as to the State, and to prove this, Sir, I give the following figures of arrests under the Banishment Ordinance and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance: Orders of banishment issued between 26th April, 1955, and 18th September, 1956, that is, from the time of the first sitting of the last session till 18th September, 1956: For subversive activities - 17. This includes the six arrests made on 18th September, 1956. The other 11 are made up as follows: nine, after conviction; two, without conviction; one, after banishment enquiry; and one, an Advisory case. Criminal cases - 40. Total - 57, including the six, for the period between 26th April, 1955, and 18th September, 1956. Number of persons arrested and detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance from the date of the Ordinance (21st October, 1955), nearly a year ago, to 18th September, 1956: Total detention orders made - 24, made up as follows: four convicted; five released on suspension order; five have departed; one was released; one is at the Rehabilitation Centre; eight still detained. In addition, one direction order was made. These figures, Sir, clearly illustrate that the Government gives very serious consideration, examines every case on its individual merits, before issuing any order for arrest under these two Ordinances. Sir, it has been alleged by the Member for Bukit Timah that the action which this Government has taken against subversive elements is the result of a deal which I had made with the Colonial Office. This allegation is utterly ridiculus and is just another artifice designed to distort real conditions and the real sentiments of the great majority of the people of Singapore. Is he suggesting that the elected Government must stand by tamely and take no action to protect the security of the people of Singapore? The primary duty of this Government, and indeed of any government, is to provide for the safety and security of the people of Singapore, and it is not going to deviate from this duty. We either govern or we do not. Sir, I would like to pay tribute to the public for remaining calm throughout these trying days. I would like to appeal to them to take heart and to join forces to put an end to this evil that is in our midst. With their support and their cooperation, the work which the Government has set out to do will be made much easier and surer of success. The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) rose-

Order, please. Obviously the Minister will take some time, so I will suspend the sitting now and take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.17 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Consideration of Amendment resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister. This morning, we heard from the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) a forecast of what is to happen in the next elections, a forecast reinforced by a series of quotations of what the masses of right-thinking people are thinking. I am surprised that a man, who has such a fine command of the English language as he has, should have descended to that abuse of the language - that double talk for which the Communists are responsible. He speaks of "masses" when he really means "minorities". He speaks of "right-thinking people" when he means people whose ability to think for themselves has been killed by the insistent brain-washing to which they have been subjected. The Member for Tanjong Pagar ridiculed the support which the Government has received for its action. He condemns some of the associations because he has not heard of them. He has not heard of them because picked men have been doing the hearing for him. Is not his Party always claiming the support of so many hundreds of associations and so many thousands of supporters and members? But can he deny that many of the members of these associations are so because they have been intimidated into joining? Thousands are counted over and over again because they are members of many different associations. How many members of the Middle Schools Students' Union, for instance, are members also of the multitude of the so-called Old Boys' Association, Old Boys of Primary Schools and of the various so-called cultural societies? There is, however, one part of the speech made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar this morning with which I agree. I refer to the part in which he touched on the consequences of dictatorial action. The action of this Government has been taken simply and solely to prevent the young and immature mind from being taught how to practise the art of dictatorship and yet win the support of weak-kneed and spineless adults. The hon. Member also spoke of the free play of ideas. Mr Speaker, Sir, when you have heard what I have to say, you will be able to judge whether there is any free play of ideas in the Students' Union, any free play of ideas among these young students who, by their malleable nature, have had their minds perverted and twisted to think along the lines dictated to them by unscrupulous, cowardly adults who embrace an ideology alien to all of us. The Government, as the Hon. the Chief Minister has pointed out, will not tolerate such subversive acts perpetrated by aliens or local persons whose loyalty lies elsewhere. You have only to look at the audacity of the students who flout the law. One does not have to go far to see how our young students have been forced to do and to think. Thousands of our middle school students sang Communist songs and held protest meetings in their classrooms to celebrate Peking's National Day. Where is their loyalty? People talk glibly of Merdeka on the one hand while, on the other, they go out of their way to encourage would-be voters to turn their heads to Peking, the New China, Mao Tse-tung, Lenin, Krushchev, Stalin, and a host of other Communists. This morning, hon. Members received a White Paper, No. Cmd. 53 of 1956, entitled "Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Students' Union". The contents in this Paper are factual statements backed by concrete proofs. After reading it and after I have finished with my account of the reasons for the arrests of the students and teachers connected with subversion and the grounds on which the Government has decided to ban the Students' Union, I am sure that hon. Members will have no doubts whatsoever of the justifiable and wise action taken by Government. Before I do so, I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to a few factual statements printed on page 1 of the White Paper: "In 1951, the Central Bureau of the Malayan Communist Party issued a directive on the "Party's Urgent Tasks", one of which was defined in this way: Cultural Working Personnel. Town organisations must train up working personnel, particularly young cultural working personnel, to send out to operate in the rural areas. To this end it is very necessary for the Party to be active among Middle School Students, and this aspect of our work must be completed satisfactorily. Similarly, in a later M.C.P. directive dated 11th June, 1956, it was laid down that: The work of winning over the school children is very important and must not be overlooked. Especially in circumstances where the enemy is stronger than we are, the work of winning support from school children and organising them to struggle is more important than military activities. Clearly the schools were a target for Communist exploitation as another instrument for the achievement of power by the M.C.P. A statement was made in 1955 by a Chinese Middle School student who was an official of the Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Students' Union and at the same time an under-cover agent for the M.C.P. He said: At one stage the Government was about to permit registration (of the Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Students' Union) under the conditions that students should not take part in political activities or interfere with labour disputes. Representatives of the Preparatory Committee refused to accept this proviso and this was considered by the Party Organisation to be stupid... The Union should accept such conditions outwardly but carry on with political activities afterwards ...The decision to register the Union with the proviso was undoubtedly made by the Party Organisation and accepted by the S.C.M.S.S.U." I will now proceed to show you, Mr Speaker, in detail how the activities of the Union have followed unmistakably the Communist pattern. The difficulty has been, not to find supporting evidence, but to decide what to select from the enormous mass of material obtained from papers published, speeches made and actions taken by officials of the Union and by leaders of the Communist countries whose stooges they have been. The Government decided to dissolve the Union because its activities were incompatible with the peace and good order of this colony, and because it was being used for purposes which conflicted with its objects or rules as entered in the Register of Societies. The grounds for the first charge are that the Union had become a Communist-front organisation, that it had been penetrated by elements of the M.C.P., and that it had used intimidatory methods to oppose Government policy and school authority; and for the second, that it had persistently flouted a condition in its rules that it should not take part in politics. Now the Communists have been for several years in armed revolt against constitutional government in Malaya and anyone who aids them is an enemy of the people. The charges that the Union is a Communist-front organisation and that it has been penetrated by the M.C.P. are therefore exceedingly grave charges. What is a Communist-front organisation? It is simply an organisation which allows itself to be used for Communist purposes. It may or may not have members who are Communists; if it has, then it is all the more dangerous because it can be manipulated more effectively to serve Communist ends. The Students' Union has been infiltrated by the M.C.P. and, since its registration in October last year, 4 members of whom 3 were officials have had to be detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. In all 4 cases, the Council of Ministers was quite satisfied that the M.C.P. connections did, in fact, exist. One of the 3 officials handed over to the Police a large number of M.C.P. documents including a series of secret party publications entitled Study, in which stress was laid upon the importance of study to help comrades to further the revolution; of the three magic weapons - the leadership of the Communist Party, the armed struggle, and the united front - which experience has shown them to be fundamentally suited for use in the national liberation movements in the colonies; of criticism and self-criticism as a means to unity; and of the development of workers and student movements to help the mass struggle. Again, a middle school pupil was found in possession of a series of party education documents entitled "Hsueh Hsi" ("Study") which have undoubtedly influenced the methods used by the Union. The pupil was convicted in court and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. There is irrefutable evidence then that the Communists had penetrated into the Union. What of the charge that it had behaved in a Communist way and allowed itself to be used for Communist purposes? Here there is much evidence - for example, of its close collaboration with other Communist-front organisations such as the Women's Federation and the various so-called cultural societies; of its use of the well-known Communist practices of hsueh hsi and of criticism and self-criticism to condition the minds of its members to accept the party line - that I must deal with at much greater length later. It is interesting and revealing to trace the increasing use by the Union of all well-tried Communist techniques and I therefore propose to give you, first of all, a short survey of the origins of the Union, of its `struggle' for registration, and of its development into a Communist-front organisation. Hon. Members will remember the introduction into this country of a scheme for National Service, which required just a few of the army of able-bodied young men to give up an hour or two a week to undergo training principally for the Civil Defence Corps. For any young man who professed to be loyal to this country, this service should have been not a' hardship to be avoided but a privilege to be undertaken proudly and willingly. Yet soon after the registration began, it became obvious that there was increasingly organised opposition in the Chinese Middle Schools, and eventually a 55-man delegation was appointed with the high-sounding title of the "Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Students Appealing for Exemption from National Service Delegation". That delegation eventually gave way to a preparatory committee which on the 9th of October, 1954, made a Press release about the proposal to set up a Chinese Middle Schools Students' Union. On the 7th of January, 1955, the first formal application for the Union to be registered was made to the Registrar of Societies. It was refused on the grounds that the Union would be used for political purposes and its registration would therefore be against the public interest. On the 22nd of January, a second application was made and when this also was refused, there was violent agitation in the Chinese Press and appeals for support to all the organisations of the extreme Left. At the end of March, the pupils of the middle schools organised a one-day sit-down strike in protest against the continued refusal to register the society. This strike was very much a threat to the newly elected Coalition Government, which harboured nothing but goodwill to all men. I will not say that it could see no wrong in anyone, but it was naturally reluctant to place any restriction upon the activities of any section of the community unless it had certain proof that these activities would be detrimental to the interests of the people as a whole. You will, no doubt, remember the flood of metaphors about the position in the Chinese middle schools at that time. It was said, for instance, that the body educational was a sick child which required careful nursing, and although it was suggested that a more fitting analogy would have been to an infected patient who ought to be isolated, or to one suffering from a rapidly spreading cancer for which only the surgeon's knife could provide the cure, the Government, nevertheless, believed that its proper course was to give these young people the opportunity to show that they could be trusted to work for the common good. Of course, we had our doubts about the wisdom of registering - doubts on educational as well as political grounds. We thought that authority should be vested in the principal and teachers, perhaps with the possibility of appeal to the supervisor as the representative of the managers in matters which particularly affected their interests. We foresaw the danger of introducing into the schools another body which might claim control over the pupils, a control which might easily conflict with the authority of those legally set in authority over them. It needed little imagination to foresee the dangers of their participation in politics and in trade disputes. Indeed they had already given not only the Government but representatives of all Parties in this Assembly cause to fear the harm they might do by their activities in these fields. Let me quote from the Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education. Paragraph 86 reads as follows: "Whilst taking such a sympathetic approach towards students' discussion of politics, we must beware of the fact that there is a danger that healthy student activities and enthusiasm could be misused by political groups whose intentions are to use these student activities to overthrow a lawfully constituted Government unconstitutionally. In welcoming students taking an intelligent interest in politics since they will shortly take their places as adult members of the population, whether they come from English schools or Chinese schools, there should, however, be constant vigilance to see that any particular form of normal student activity is not perverted by groups whose sole intention is to overthrow a lawfully constituted Government by unlawful activities." Although this danger was understood, the Committee thought that the possibilities for good outweighed the possibilities for evil. Paragraph 82 of the same Report states that: "...there are activities which could result in a better Singapore and in which the student participation would not only be welcomed, but would give them the sense of worthwhile achievement, of responsibility, and of valuable training in citizenship - practical duties of building up, of contributing to security and a better way of life, of combating disease, poverty and ignorance, not of fostering feelings of hatred and dissension. They should devote themselves to their studies and make good use of the educational and career opportunities which will presently be opened to them, and thus serve Singapore and Malaya." And then in paragraph 83 of the same Report: "We noted with deep satisfaction, whilst this Report was being finalised, that the Singapore Chinese Students' Union had been accepted for registration as a Society, on stipulating that the members as a body would not participate in politics nor in industrial strife of any kind. We endorse this decision." All Parties therefore had their doubts, yet all Parties were then agreed that Government was justified in giving the opportunity to do good before it denied the opportunity to do evil. Let us see now how the Union responded to the trust reposed in them by the Government and other elected Members of this Assembly. The Union was registered on the 6th of October, 1955. On the very next day - I repeat, the very next day - the Union organised Victory celebrations. An outsider would no doubt attribute this to a natural youthful exuberance and happiness. So it may have been for some of the misguided boys and girls who took part. But the celebrations quickly assumed a sinister meaning. The victory was attributed not to the generosity on the part of the Government but to "the glorious bloodshed of May the 13th and to the sit-down strike of the 30th of March". There was an attack on the Public Security Bill - said to be "more ruthless than the Emergency Regulations" - and demands for the release of detainees. The Union had started off as it meant to continue, with a flagrant defiance of the authority of Government. Two days later, the Union wrote to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce demanding their support against the Public Security Bill, which, they alleged, discriminated against the Union. Another ten days, and we had a speech by an official of the Union saying, amongst other things, that the Public Security Bill should be opposed to the last and that the 'No-politics' clause was unreasonable and must be fought against. On the next day, the 11th November, they were reminded by the Registrar of Societies of the 'No-politics' clause in their constitution. With what effect? At a meeting at the Chinese High School called on the 12th, the President of the Union, Mr Soon Loh Boon, again demanded the cancellation of the 'No-politics' clause and attacked the Public Security Bill. On the 13th, there was a meeting at the Chung Cheng High School which not only repeated those attacks but also resolved to send a letter to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce asking it to intervene in the Singapore Traction Company strike, and to warn the Government that the Union would participate in political activities if the Government did not specify in the Public Security Ordinance that students would not be arrested. Can you imagine anything more arrogant, or more likely to lead to a reign of terror in Singapore? What is a student? The word is used in Singapore loosely to describe anyone from a child of four or five going to his first nursery school to an adult doing post-graduate studies at a university. Are they all, including these professional young men in their middle twenties who appear to find the role of agitator against the Government so profitable, to be above the law? I hope that hon. Members will agree with me that there are so-called students in this colony whose presence here makes it imperative to have the Public Security Ordinance. You all know what the Federation Government thinks of them, and that it has made it quite clear that their trips across the Causeway are unwelcomed. Let me continue with this revealing catalogue of the Union's activities. On the 19th of November the Union replied that the warning of the Registrar of Societies could not be accepted; on the 27th, they wrote to me asking me to intervene in the bus strike; and about this time too they began to agitate again against National Service and organised a mutual help department, one of the objects of which was to help members of the Union to avoid being called up for service. These, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the young people who claim to stand in the van of the fight for Merdeka. What kind of Merdeka would it be which had to rely on such spineless material? In early December, they returned to the attack on Government's educational policy, reinforced - on paper at least, though there is, in fact, no appreciable distinction between them - by a number of Old Boys' associations and by the Arts Society of Middle School Graduates of 1953. And the girls came into the picture again when a lorry carrying the Union badge was laden at the Nanyang Girls High School with food which was then delivered to strikers from the United Engineers, the Singapore Traction Company and the Green Bus Company. The Union was, of course, not concerned only with educational matters and the welfare of its members. In 1956, it began to take a more and more prominent role in political meetings organised jointly with organisations not for discussion but for political action and agitation. On 3rd March, for instance, they joined with four cultural groups to protest against the banning of a concert with pro-Communist items. On the 8th of March, the President, Soon Loh Boon, spoke at the gathering called to celebrate the Communist Women's International Day'. For this celebration the Union published a special book of songs entitled We Want Peace which was based on the Communist Peace Campaign. Most of the songs were clearly of Russian or Chinese Communist origin. The name The Great Students Union is but a substitute for The Great Mao Tse-tung in scarcely veiled disguise; and The Song of the Youthful Students is taken directly from a Russian film on collective farming. But I will not weary you with a recital of all the meetings at which the Union has collaborated with adult organisations to launch political attacks on Government and to initiate or support some political agitation or other. So it went on. Almost every day something was done or said which made it clear that the Union was actively taking part in politics and in trade disputes. If anything, the tempo of activity increased; certainly an increasingly large number of pupils became involved many of them in the first place, no doubt, innocently. The Union became even more arrogant, and did not hesitate to "persuade" managers of schools, principals and teachers to fall in with their wishes. Their language became more and more highly coloured and exaggerated. National Service laws, for instance, are alleged "to have seriously threatened the lives and safety of students and jeopardised their chances of study"; we are told that "the foxes are cunning but they cannot escape the discerning eyes of the hunters" and that "the public are not hoodwinked by the calumnies of the authorities"; the President of the Union, Soon Loh Boon, demands that "the bloodshed of May the 13th shall be repaid in blood"; and there is more and more talk of the cruel struggle and of Malaya becoming a second Cyprus - I repeat that: Malaya becoming a second Cyprus.

The Chief Minister has already said that.

All this is so familiar to those who have had the experience of the process of Communist subversion elsewhere. To the normal decent citizen of Singapore, this ranting is sickening and has no appeal. But the leaders in this conspiracy are addressing their words not to men and women of mature mind and sober judgment but to the masses of young people in our Chinese schools and of the less well-educated workers in our fields and factories. These are their first target because they are so much more vulnerable to the emotional appeals of the demagogue and it is all the more necessary that they should be protected. One of the few encouraging features has been the growth within the Chinese middle schools of a resistance movement. This is more than the active group which has been responsible for distributing anti-Communist leaflets, the members of which have openly accused the Union of encroaching on their freedom, defaming their character, and threatening their safety. Even if we are to rely only on the evidence of the papers published by the Union, it would appear that many members have been lukewarm in their support, have been backward in paying subscriptions, have preferred the private company of their friends to union-organised parties, and have resisted attempts by the Union to direct their studies for them. This, not unnaturally, was a matter of serious concern to the Union and a determined campaign was launched to overcome this opposition. This took a number of forms, the most important of which was probably the adoption of the well-known Communist practice of hsueh hsi. Now it is not difficult for a student of language to give examples of words which through association with people or circumstances have acquired a completely new significance. The words "hsueh hsi" are two such words. In the days before the Chinese Communist Party came into power they meant quite simply "to study and practise".They could have been taken as a motto by any school in any country anywhere in the world, and that, no doubt, is why they have been taken over by the Communist Party. For they provide a seemingly innocent cover for the pernicious methods they use to indoctrinate the young people of the country, to ensure that they should all think with one mind and all speak with one voice - the voice of the Party. Before I try to analyse more closely the theory and practice of hsueh hsi in Communist China, let me give you just one quotation to show how the Communists themselves use hsueh hsi for the propagation of their doctrine. Here is Fung Man Pan, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Youth Corps, speaking at the First National Congress of the Youth Corps: "The main task of the Youth Corps in school is to hsueh hsi - to help and lead the students' bodies and organisations in carrying out extra curricular activities and hsueh hsi and to prevent the tendency to study for study's sake. Members of the Youth Corps should hsueh hsi Marxism and Leninism and the theories of these two isms. The ideology of Mao Tse-tung should be brought to the students." It would be difficult, surely, to state more bluntly than this that hsueh hsi is to be the vehicle for the propagation of the Communist philosophy and its Party line. But let us see how the Communists define hsueh hsi. The New Knowledge Dictionary, published in China, describes it thus: "A collective hsueh hsi system includes general theory, business or trade theory and technique and policies but it has still to be coordinated with political study. There is no limitation as to the number of persons for participation, but the ideal is between 8 and 15 people, and normally a meeting is to he held once a week. An outline is to be prepared first regarding measures for hsueh hsi, and thereafter everyone can express his or her views, make discussions and conclusions. This is because this sort of organised hsueh hsi urges, helps and leads everyone to progress in a definite direction. At the same time, this sort of collective hsueh hsi organisation can be utilised to carry out criticism and self criticism so that everyone can continually rectify the former bad habits of being anti-collective liberal, individually heroic, loosely unorganised, lax and non-urgent." If you read this quickly and without examining it critically, you may be tempted to say that you can see nothing very wrong in it. But let us have a closer look - especially at the words "organised hsueh hsi urges, helps and leads everyone to progress in a definite direction". In what direction? In the direction your individual conscience dictates? Or the direction agreed upon by the group by the method we know as democratic discussion? No. It is the direction laid down by the Party line: if you do not agree with it, you will be persuaded (and the word "persuaded" is acquiring a meaning very different from what we mean by the word) to correct your bad habits and through criticism and self-criticism to admit the error of your ways and toe the Party line. Note, too, the use of cells of small numbers of pupils. Why should not the normal class of 40 be the unit? Let us see what the students themselves have to say: "Each class is divided into 3 or 4 cells to carry out their study. This will cure the bad habits of some students who dare not say what they think in front of many people. They will be able to reveal all their views in the cell meetings." There is no escape. No individual has any right to views which conflict with those of the group. Let him but try to defend himself and his fate is already determined. He will - let me quote - "be scorned as a weakling who has not the courage to admit his mistakes as a bad worker who is unwilling to rectify his defects - decidedly not a leader". Let us look at another article entitled "The importance of carrying out hsueh hsi in theories" published by the Union in the "Voice of Study" on 7th March, 1956: "In the colonial society there is no freedom of speech and hsueh hsi; on the contrary we have to suffer from all kinds of persecution. Allegations were placed over our heads and we were regarded as wild beasts. That is why it is difficult to buy or find the right type of theoretical books." Those who have read the long-winded perversions of truth which the Union has issued and certain sections of the local Press have obediently published, will need no further proof of the absurdity of the charge that these young people have been denied freedom of speech. But what, I wonder, are "the correct type of theoretical books"? Surely only two kinds of books are banned - the subversive and the pornographic? And since these students of ours are so violent in their outcries against yellow literature there can be only one answer, that the publications denied to them are those which are politically subversive. The system of hsueh hsi groups adopted from Communist China was first introduced into Singapore on a significant scale during the first phase of the "Hsueh Hsi" propaganda week held in Chinese schools from the 25th of February to the 3rd of March. Hsueh Hsi could not achieve its desired end without a collective life, the purpose of which is to achieve the collective control of the minds and thoughts of the pupils. Collective life forms an integral part of the system of collective Hsueh Hsi and the collective life organised by the Union at the Teo Kim Eng Villa during which hsueh hsi and discussion groups were organised and prepared questionnaires were distributed can be considered as a typical manifestation of this policy. In March, the Arts Society of the Nanyang Girls' High School, at the instance of the Union, published the first number of the "Voice of Study". This emphasised the superiority of collective to individual study, the need to read about current events, but only in the right kind of newspapers, and the importance of theory. These are typical quotations: "In response to the call of the Chinese Middle Schools Students' Union, the Art Section of this school is actively starting a study cell. However, in regard to this, a misunderstanding has arisen among the fellow-students. They feel that a study cell is a mere waste of time and energy. They emphasise on the greater results to be obtained from individual study. Hitherto our fellow-students have had little experience in collective study. They are accustomed to individual self-study. However, if only the fellow-students are prepared to give collective study a trial, they will understand better the importance of collective study. In collective study, it is possible to improve an individual's defect in study. Any doubts or difficulties in school lessons can be brought up for all to discuss and analyse, thereby avoiding any lowering of the study spirit and any loss of confidence in study. Since there are so many good points in a study cell for collective study, it is hoped that all fellow-students will actively participate in collective study. We must daily read the newspapers which possess a proper standpoint and whose comments are fair and just." And on theory, they have this to say: "Moreover theory is an important weapon with which to reform our thought. It will correct a person's human outlook ... We must employ the proper knowledge of theory as a weapon with which to expose the dying evil influence and propagate and expand the new born power." There you see the determination to bring all into the fold and then to set about reforming their thoughts. An essential feature of hsueh hsi is the practice of criticism and self-criticism which is merely a polite name for one of the many forms of intimidation used to enforce uniformity and unflinching obedience to the organisation. The Union's own pronouncements on this subject are but a reflection of the statements to be found in the Basic Knowledge Text-book of the Youth Corps, published in Peking. Here is what it says: "Criticism and self-criticism are the powerful weapons of the Youth Corps when educating its members and the young masses with Marxism. Leninism and the ideology of Mao Tse-tung. There are some who fail to understand the importance of criticism and self-criticism. Some may have views of their own, but they will not voice their opinions in the meeting. They elect to make little broadcast behind one's back. This is a rotten type of liberalism. All the revolutionary youths and corps members who are loyal to the corps should oppose liberalism and carry out criticism and self-criticism." There is again a message to the Second National Congress of the Youth Corps delivered by Liu Shao-chi: "In order to consolidate their own organisation, the entire body of members of the Chinese New Democratic Youth Corps must' learn how to manipulate the method of criticism and self-criticism so as to carry on a struggle against all the bad phenomena which are harmful to the enterprise of the people and the undertaking of the Party." The Union has not scrupled to use Communist sources such as these to obtain material for its own publications. The paper "Actively launch criticism and self-criticism", which was prepared for a series of executive vacation study classes by the Directing Sub-Committee of the Union, is typical. The bricks of Communist ideology are there unchanged though admittedly a little local cement is used to bind them together. But all is couched in this new language of 'double-talk' or 'weasel words' in what was no doubt originally an attempt to conceal its meaning. If the words are taken at their face value, they are comparatively harmless: if they are translated from double-talk to plain English, their sinister nature becomes apparent. Can anyone, Sir, have the slightest doubt that this Union has been acting, at the very least, as a Communist-front organisation, that it is an organisation designed to act as an instrument of Communist policy, an organisation whose real purpose is masked behind a facade of social ideals which many respectable people of progressive views in Singapore would approve? Though we have conclusive proof that several members of this Union were Communists, a union might yet be a Communist front organisation even if it had no Communist members at all. The fact that there has been this direct Communist influence within the Union merely strengthens the case against it. Documents found on Communist members who have been arrested show that the general policy speeches and writings of their Communist masters have been adopted almost without modification. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the Hsueh Hsi campaign in Singapore has for its purpose the indoctrination of the children in our Chinese schools so that even if they do not become Communists, whilst still at school, they will at least be so amenable to persuasion and so conditioned to sink their individuality and obey orders that they will become easy converts to Communism. So far I have dealt only with the expression in speech or in writing of the theory of indoctrination. I must confess I have found it impossibly dull and boring, and have found it difficult to understand how the pupils could be persuaded to read or even to listen to it. They are made to do so partly because the doctrines are so systematically and persistently put across that no pupil can avoid becoming acquainted with them, and partly because the approach is made through forms of activity which are widely and immediately popular. The tactic are described in an interesting document published by the Union which is entitled "Enriching Study Life and increasing Study Results". This paper shows how the Communist influence has penetrated into every aspect of school life. The Union has become almost a separate Directorate of Education within the middle school system. Its duties may be summarised under five headings: -

On a point of order?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard the Minister for Education objecting to some Members on the Opposition side reading their speeches. For the last fifty minutes, the Minister was reading right through just seconding an amendment. I am not objecting to that but I just want it to be put on record.

The point of order has been taken. It has occurred to me that possibly the Minister is making too great a reference to his notes but in this particular debate I have, in fact, been a little lax and I intend to continue to be a little lax.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir,I have to refer to my notes, having a mass of quotations taken from the records of this Union.

Prepared by the Special Branch!

The material is not prepared by the Special Branch but is taken from the Union records. Two notable instances of Union interference occurred: one, at the Chui Chun School where primary school pupils aged between 11 and 12 were persuaded to stage a sit-down strike; two, at the Thye Chung School where a mass demonstration with microphones was staged to persuade the managers to withdraw their application for full aid. There was also a campaign to intimidate these managers to withdraw their application for full aid and they also spread unfounded rumours that these managers had accepted bribes from the Ministry of Education. So much for "Enriching School Life". I think you will agree, Sir, that this is a horrifying picture and that corruption of school life would be a much more suitable title. It is difficult to find words adequate to describe the depths of depravity to which those who are behind these activities are prepared to sink. The Communist is amoral and quite ruthless. For him there is no future life and no conscience. The end justifies the means, however revolting, and I find it difficult to imagine anything more vile and pernicious than the corruption of the minds of young children of which I have been trying to give you a picture. Some hon. Members may find it difficult to believe that it can all be true. Nevertheless, it is true and when one begins to analyse these facts, I am sure one will shudder at the subtle and ruthless methods perpetrated by these Communists. There is one other method the Union has recently started to use to ensure that the thoughts of members are channelled in one direction. I refer to the Question Papers that the Union has set, quite illegally, for pupils to answer. Some of these Question Papers were given on a Friday to pupils. Pupils were asked to return home and hand back those Papers on the following Monday. In the White Paper tabled before the Assembly, you will find the Appendices attached to it showing the nature of those questions. At a first glance, some of these questions are quite harmless and it would indeed be difficult to take any single question and state categorically that it was politically or educationally objectionable. There are a few purely factual questions which are probably included only to lend a cloak of respectability to the papers; but most are questions which require the expression of an opinion. The papers are indeed but another searchlight which can be turned on to the mind of the student, so that any deviation from the correct path can be quickly revealed and dealt with. That then is the picture. I have shown how the Union was a Communist-front organisation which not only acted as an instrument for Chinese Communist policy but had indeed been infiltrated by Communists. In dealing with this evil, the Government must have the support of every loyal citizen, and especially of those parents and teachers whose immediate problem it is to discipline these young people and restore them to sanity. In the past, managers and teachers have been wont to blame Government's inactivity for their disciplinary troubles. They have said that by registering the Union, the Government indicated its approval, and though in this they were mistaken, there is yet some justification for the charge that Government's decision to register the Union did indeed add to the schools' disciplinary troubles. Now that excuse is no longer valid and it is hoped that they will rally to Government's support. The parents, too, have been not altogether free from blame. Many have allowed their children to get out of hand, and they must lose no time in re-asserting their authority if their children are not to be lost to them altogether. The Chief Minister has set a lead in courage and devotion to the people of Singapore. Now is the time for all who have the well-being of our young people at heart to rally at once to his support. There is one thing which I must make perfectly clear to everyone who is concerned about the future of Chinese education. The operation the Government has had to perform to remove the cancer of Communism from the Chinese middle schools was designed to cure the patient, not to kill him. The Government has repeatedly expressed its determination, as far as it lies in its power, to give equal educational opportunity to every child and equal treatment to all kinds of schools; and it has followed up these words with deeds. It has gone to the root of the problem by providing courses of training and conditions of service for Chinese teachers exactly parallel to those for other teachers; it has offered full grant in aid to approved Chinese schools on exactly the same conditions as those that apply to English schools. If anyone dares to say that the Government is discriminating against Chinese education or is trying to destroy Chinese culture, then I throw the words back in his face. The actions that your Government has taken and the conditions under which Government aid will be given have one important aim in common-to keep alive what is good and what is `universal' in Chinese art and literature. This cancer that we are determined to root out is evil, it is a deadly evil. I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that not only hon. Members in this House, but every loyal pupil and every loyal parent of every pupil will fight boldly and without remission to eliminate this evil from our educational system. This is our decision, the decision of the elected Government of Singapore. It was a decision taken in the interests of our children in our schools. We know the heartache that the influence of the Union upon their children has brought into the very many homes in Singapore, and we are quite sure that the very great majority of parents were immensely relieved when the Government at last faced up to its responsibilities. This was no hasty decision. It was a decision based on a great mass of accumulated evidence which left no doubt whatever that the Union was an organisation penetrated by Communists and whose continued existence is a menace to this country. I now proceed by touching upon the reasons for the arrests of the teachers. Knowing the importance which the Chinese Communist Government attaches to the indoctrination of school children, it can be no surprise to hon. Members that 5 of the 7 persons arrested on Banishment or Detention Orders were teachers in Chinese schools. The grounds for the arrests are not necessarily directly or indirectly connected with their work in the schools. Against some of them, there is conclusive proof that their activities were contrary to the interests of the people of the colony, quite apart from the influence they brought to bear upon the pupils of the schools in which they taught. Cheng Meng Hui and Pang Sui Song were in positions of great responsibility in the Chung Cheng Main School which, as you must have heard, was perhaps the most seriously affected of all middle schools. Chen Meng Hui was the Dean of Discipline - surely an ironical title because, as you all know, there had been little attempt in that school to exert any authority which conflicted with the wishes of the Union.

Order. Am I correct in saying that there is an appeal pending by these gentlemen?

I understand, Sir, that a petition is coming to be reconsidered by the Council of Ministers.

In that case, I must rule that this is in the nature of a sub judice matter and that reference should not be made by the Minister to those arrested.

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir. I hope I have not presented a picture of Chinese education which will lead you to believe that we have lost all hope. I am well aware of the great potentialities of the thousands of boys and girls in our middle schools who have quite honestly believed that they were doing the right thing. Our fight is not against them, it is for them, but it is against the people who are behind this campaign of corruption. These are the people we are quite determined to root out. Only when we have done that shall we be able to work together for the good of the great body of men, women and children of Singapore who are fundamentally kind, sincere and hardworking. It is in this belief that I ask all hon. Members in this House to support this amendment.

The original Question was, "That this House is gravely concerned over the recent arrests of trade union and civic leaders and the dissolution of two societies, and deplores the arbitrary manner of the Government's action." Since when, an amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after the word "House" to the end and to insert the words: "takes note of the recent arrests of six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one person under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the dissolution of two societies, and welcomes the strong action taken by the Government against subversive elements in Singapore." The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 6th September, this Assembly unanimously gave a vote of confidence on the Government's policy for the coming year and I was one of the first to note the sincerity of the Hon. the Chief Minister when he proposed that motion. I am very glad indeed to see that my confidence in him has not been misplaced. On the other hand, we have the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) who complained that he and his Party have been taken for a ride. How can he claim to have been taken for a ride when in the Governor's Address, it was expressly stated that the Government was determined to take strong action to remove threats to the public welfare and safety of all the citizens of Singapore? He might have been taken for a ride, that is, taken for a ride by the members of his Party and of his supporters who have been indulging in all the illegal and subversive activities described to us in this House by the Ministers or perhaps his Party members have the same ideas and same identical interests so that they can not distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. To them, their ideas and their policies are right; those of others are wrong. They have given a hint that in about eight years' time, everything will go their way and we have been told of the dire things that will happen to us. It is for all of us who do not believe in his ideas to stand together firmly behind the Government when it wants to take strong action to see that law and order are maintained in this country. It rather surprised me that even an indication of the rise in industrial shares in this market irritated him.

It did not at all. It just amused me.

It amused him if he likes but why should it amuse him or displease him? It goes to show the return of confidence in this country and that people will be prepared to invest their money here to give employment to our people. I suppose that his Party does not like this because its strength is drawn from unemployment, misery and discontent and any return to confidence and foreign investment in our country is a menace to its ideas. What is wrong with foreign investment and confidence in our country? What is happening in India, Burma and Indonesia? After these several years of independence, they found that they were unable to carry on their own development without foreign investment and they are openly asking for it. Throughout last week, there have been persistent demands that the people who have been detained or dealt with under the Banishment Ordinance be brought before the Court for trial. Such a demand is a negation of the right of Government to act under the Banishment Ordinance and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. These Ordinances were approved by Government constituted as we are today and as we have received an assurance from Government that these acts were only carried out after the most deliberate and serious considerations I do not think that any law-abiding person should question that right of Government. We have been asked to take our stand today both by the Hon. the Chief Minister and by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Our stand is clear, we stand for law and order and we support the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment before the House.

Shame!

I am not a legal man and so I do not understand the complications that will arise from these arrests. I have listened to people and I say what the people say. Since the arrests, a number of my constituents came and saw me to express their anger and dismay at this so undemocratic an action. I have had the privilege of knowing the Hon. the Chief Minister for a long time and I know that when once he has decided to take an action, he will do so whether it is good or bad. Hon. Members: Shame!

But since he has taken this action, it is up to him to bring these people to the bar of justice. If you fail to do that, then you are the people who are going to break the law because the law should be applied equally to both parties: those who are governed and the governors. You speak of subversive elements. Who are those subversive elements? Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. The hon. Member mentioned that you spoke of subversive elements but I did not hear you say that in this House.

I myself do not recollect talking about subversive elements, but perhaps I had better remind the hon. Member that his remarks should, in fact, be addressed to the Chair.

Sir, I was referring to the Hon. the Chief Minister who spoke of subversive elements. Who are these subversive elements? Who is to decide who are the subversive elements? In the whole of political history, to the man who holds the gun, the other man is a subversive element. That is everywhere. Take, for example, Indo-China. When France was ruling North IndoChina, they said that certain other people were subversive elements. When those people took over, the Prince and the people who supported French rule were subversive elements. Today, you are holding the gun and you are ruling the people. You say that there are subversive elements. When they come to power, they will say that you are the subversive element. So I say that the Hon. the Chief Minister should think it over and choose to rule by the will of the people. It has been said, Sir, that the Hon. the Chief Minister was an innocent victim in the hands of some of the men in his Cabinet who control the levers of power but I am not going to repeat those charges here. What I say is that he should rule by the will of the people and by lessons from the latest historical development like the Suez Canal crisis. The Suez Canal crisis has taught one lesson and that is that it has united all Asian nations. There is also the lesson to study that there is no place in Asia for Asians who have axes to grind with Europe or for that matter with Washington. We all know, Sir, what happened to the stooges of Indo-China but I do not think that the situation will arise here if we all abide by the rule of the law but if the Government takes the law in their hands, it will open an avenue for others to do the same and that was precisely what had happened in Indo-China. Indo-China has fought against the background of colonial slumber slowly waking from the sleep of centuries but today Asians slumber no more. They are quite alert and they are ready to fight for their rights and I hope that the colonial Government will have a new approach to the situation in Singapore because it has been said that these arrests were made in the name of the people of Singapore. It is only a pretension. These arrests were made in the name of British vested interests. Sir, I will end this speech with a quotation from Mr Alfred Robin, the Labour spokesman on foreign policy of the British Parliament, when he warned the British Government against using force in the Suez Canal crisis: "Remember there will be a day when Asia will ring down an iron curtain against Europeans, when no European will be allowed to set foot in Asia." If that was a warning given by a European to European adventurers, what shall I say to Asians who lend themselves as stooges to these European adventurers? Sir, not only I oppose the amendment but I declare in this House that I am supporting the original motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the tirades of the People's Action Party accusing Government of having acted undemocratically, and strong, courageous and convincing answers from the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Minister for Education. Who are the people who have resorted to subversive measures to undermine our democratic institutions? Who are the people who try to take the law into their own hands for their own evil purposes? Not the Council of Ministers, in our view, but those very people whom it has been necessary for the Council of Ministers to detain. However repugnant it is for any government to use its powers of detention without trial - and one wonders whether the P.A.P. would really find it repugnant if they were in power - there are times and occasions when such a decision has to be made to protect the democratic institutions and the democratic way of life of 1� million people in Singapore. And the only way to give them protection is to deal summarily with a handful of persons who not only have no love for democracy but seek to destroy it. The vast majority of law-abiding citizens cannot be sacrificed to the tiny minority who wish to flout law and order and to promote conditions of chaos. Representatives of the People's Action Party outside this House have advanced the argument that the Government's action should have been submitted to a people's referendum on the ground that this Assembly is unrepresentative of the people. That is pure nonsense. It only serves to underline this group's contempt for a democratic form of government we have learned in this Assembly proudly and successfully to foster. The 25 elected Members of this Assembly who claim to be the representatives of the people were elected about 18 months ago. Whatever the People's Action Party likes to say, we represent them now, and our verdict in this House today is the voice of the people. Speaking, Sir, as an elected Member of this House, I bring this mandate from my constituency, not from the residential section which is solidly behind the Government, but from the much larger numbers of non-English-speaking people in my rural districts. What they have told me voluntarily and without my having to ask is this: 'We want you to be firm. We are not in favour of law and order being disrupted. If drastic action is needed, take it and we will back you.' Sir, perhaps I may put this mandate which I hold to my hon. Friends opposite in my own words and they are these: Be firm, be just, be vigilant; be firm, because by remaining firm in the course you have taken, you will gather behind you immense support for any further measures that it may be necessary to take in the public interest; be just, and show your justice by taking the people into your confidence regarding your actions just as far as you possibly can; be vigilant, not only to see that those who wish to do evil are thwarted of their evil purposes but also to see that, through over-confidence, you do not misuse the considerable powers entrusted to you by this Assembly - an assurance which indeed has already been given by the Hon. the Chief Minister. So, Sir, we of the Liberal-Socialist Party say to the Government: Tell the people of Singapore that you intend to govern with firmness, justice and vigilance so that this island can be rid of the poison which is seeping into its bloodstream. We are fully behind the Government in this matter, but if my hon. Friends opposite waver in firmness or justice or vigilance, it is our duty and our right as an Opposition party to criticise any shortcomings and to hold them to the course that they have taken. Indeed, if we all remain firm, I have no cause to think that they will waver. The Hon. the Chief Minister and his colleagues bear a heavy responsibility. We seek to share that responsibility as an Opposition Party by joining them in full and complete opposition to this motion and in support of the admirably forthright and clear-cut amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has said that the Ministers on the evidence they have are convinced that these people who are under arrest are guilty of actions that are not in the interest of the people of Singapore. What are these actions? Have they broken any of the laws of this country? If they have broken any laws and the Government has evidence, then why is the Government afraid to try these persons in the courts of law? The action of the Government, Sir, has made many people in the country believe that there is no evidence against them. There are only some Police reports but the Police reports are not evidence. We are told that we are protecting democracy. Is there democracy in this House or in this country? In every democratic country, Sir, the courts of law protect the citizens from the high-handed actions of politicians and policemen. If this is true, then this country is not a democracy and the Government's action has made it even less so. The Government says that this is acting within the law. So did Hitler and all the tyrants justify their actions. They made laws that justified their highhanded and deliberately repressive actions and said that their actions were legal. This is what our Government has done. They have used the laws that our colonial masters made and used for the purpose of getting rid of people. We have set these laws against persons whose only crime is that they disagree with the Government. Is it a serious crime to disagree with the Government?

No.

They say that they do not have to prove their charges because these people are aliens. Are these people aliens? Are they more aliens than many of those sitting around the Hon. the Chief Minister? Many of those that the Government seeks to banish have spent most of their lives in this country. One of them, Linda Chen, was brought to this country when she was five years old. Her family lives here. She has lived all her life here. She knows no country but this. Is she an alien? Is she more an alien than the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas)? - I am sorry he is not here. Is she more an alien than the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair)? For that matter, she is more a part of this country than many who say that she is an alien. If she is an alien, then a very large number of the people of this country are aliens and all of them are in danger of being banished if they disagree with the Government. Even the fact that some of them are citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies will not protect them if they are not born here. Mr Speaker, Sir, such injustice has been used on the people by the Government and yet they say that this is in the interest of the people. They say that they are convinced and that therefore there is no need to go to the courts of law. Are they afraid that the Judges will not be convinced? When justice is banned by politicians and the courts of law are neglected, then we have the beginning of Fascism and Fascism does not stop at even such arrests or 70 arrests or 1,000 arrests. It will go on until its opponents are crushed and there is nobody to oppose the will of those who rule. Why has the Government which represents only a minority of the people done this? Some say that this is to please the British Government so that the next talks will be successful. They say that the Government is trying to prove to the British Government that they are willing and able to do its dirty work. There are others who say that this is the beginning of a plan to arrest as many as possible of those who are opposed to the Labour Front and the British so that when the next elections come, the discredited Labour Front will have no opposition. Probably, both these views are true because pleasing the Colonial Office and smashing the anti-colonial forces are the same things, making Singapore safe for the Labour Front and making Singapore safe for the British Government. These are both the same thing. The people of Singapore who are prepared to fight the British are also prepared to fight the Labour Front.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of us here know that the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) is a brilliant advocate and as such has done well in our local courts. I have practised as a lawyer, as you yourself, Mr Speaker, know, for the last 25 years before the elections. The Member for Tanjong Pagar would therefore surely know that with the legal training and practice at the local courts that I am fully aware that banishment is one of the most drastic punishments which could be imposed upon an individual and could only be justified after one is fully convinced from satisfactory evidence of a person's activities and that the person is dangerous and undesirable and actively participating in spreading pernicious ideologies. The Hon. the Chief Minister and the other elected Members are also fully aware of the gravity of the penalty, and the gravity of the situation. The Chief Minister has stated on every occasion and again today in the most clear terms the reason for the decision of Government in dealing with the persons concerned, and the banned associations. The Minister for Education has also given us a very full statement. There is not the slightest doubt in our minds and in the minds of those people who love Singapore and are interested in the welfare of Singapore that what Government has done is right. The only exceptions are naturally those groups controlled by "brilliantly coloured" agitators. Is there no better proof that what Government has done is right in the death threat letters received by the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Minister for Education? Is it not the pattern of the red terrorists to threaten and instil fear and has not that pattern been followed by the blackmailers who said that they will send representatives to the Assembly to watch the stand taken by Assemblymen and that if Assemblymen did not vote according to the dictates of Middle Road, they would be annihilated? In spite of the not infrequent attacks made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I have had occasion to admire some of his masterly speeches and at times believed in his sincerity. He has openly proclaimed that he is not a Communist and I believe that he is not a Communist. I therefore believe that what he has said today was said with his tongue in his cheek and to satisfy that band of foreign agitators in his Party and his backseat drivers. I challenge the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) to say that Mr Chia Ek Tian of the Factory and Shop Workers Union (Bukit Panjang Branch) is not, and has never been, a member of the Malayan Communist Party or of the Anti-British League - surely the Member for Bukit Timah knows him too well. The Labour Front has stated that they would repeal repressive laws and repressive laws will be removed when Singapore is free of the dangerous subversive elements. We are all pledged on this side of the House, as long as we are in power, to leave no stone unturned in ridding Singapore of highly undesirable persons and to deal ruthlessly with the elements which endanger the safety of the peace-loving citizens of Singapore and in this we are confident of the support of those who love Singapore and are seeking a Merdeka in which Singapore can be run by true and peace-loving Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment made by the Hon. the Chief Minister this morning against the motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Tanjong Pagar and leader of the People's Action Party. I am quite certain that all Members in this House have some indication of the feelings and reaction of the people in Singapore as a consequence of the recent arbitrary arrests and detention of trade unionists and other leaders of organisations. Government's action has been condemned, deplored and severely criticised by leaders of organisations that are truly representative of the people. The Government's action is a monstrous abuse of arbitrary powers. The Labour Front Government has had occasion prior to the 1955 elections to condemn the arbitrary powers vested in the hands of Government. We all know the details and the manner in which the Preservation of Public Security Bill was enacted into law. There was talk then that the powers under this Ordinance would only be used against anti-democratic forces. The Hon.the Chief Minister has openly stated to the public and to the Press that the recent arrests of leaders of trade unions and other organisations had nothing to do with the bodies concerned. Whom does he expect to fool? A few months ago, a branch chairman of the Army Civil Service Union was arrested soon after having successfully settled an industrial dispute. And now the Banishment Ordinance is used in place of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The effect is absolutely the same. Arbitrary powers are used against trade unionists and other organisations. Three associations have been banned. What, may we know, are the reasons for such undemocratic and pro-colonial measures? Why has our Chief Minister started talking loud and tough after his visit to Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd? Has he come to any form of arrangement whereby some form of Merdeka might be secured? Is he preparing the way for a compromise? Sir, if undemocratic measures are going to be used against the people and organisations in order to satisfy the Colonial Office, then it must be made clear to the Government that such measures shall be resisted to the very end by peaceful and constitutional means. I must urge the Government to take heed of peaceful and constitutional resistance to their arbitrary use of powers. Peaceful and constitutional resistance must be respected for, if they are not, other forms of resistance may prove tempting. In justification of the Government's action, the Hon. the Chief Minister claims to have the support of the people of Singapore for his action. He insults all sense of decency in the statement, for the people of Singapore will on no account lend support to colonialism and colonial stooges. I am informed, Sir, by the Naval Base Labour Union that in reply to a letter of protest against the recent arbitrary arrest, the Hon.the Chief Minister stated that the Trades Union Congress had expressed full con- fidence in the Government. This point, Sir, was made in reply to the Union's assertion that the Hon. the Chief Minister would be in great difficulty to find a trade union that would give unqualified public support to the Government's action. The Hon.the Chief Minister, of course, had waited until after the Trades Union Congress meeting to reply to the Naval Base Labour Union.

On a point of information, Sir. The Naval Base Labour Union never wrote to me until the support of the Trades Union Congress was reported in the Press. Do not distort facts. I can take a lot but -

It is true, Sir.

No, it is not.

A fact is a fact.

We all know, Sir, that the support of the Trades Union Congress is a farce, I repeat "it is a farce". The Trades Union Congress claims to represent 52,000 workers at least, so the Press informs us. All the major trade unions in the Congress - the Army Civil Service Union, the Air Ministry Local Staff Union and the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association - have clearly stated in the past that they are against arbitrary arrest and detention of trade union leaders. Other members of the Trades Union Congress have also expressed similar views but, unfortunately, Sir, these views have not been given space or publicity in certain sections of the Press, particularly the English Press who are now cheering on our Chief Minister to further acts of repression. In case the Chief Minister and Members of the Government have cheated themselves into believing that they have even some measure of public support, I would urge them to accept the challenge made by the representative of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union recently to the Chief Minister, the challenge being to hold another election throughout the island of Singapore or just in Havelock Division. That is our challenge to him to prove that he has public support. Sir, I would like to conclude with the remarks that these recent arrests will go down in the annals of this country's history as a great act of indiscretion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I may sound selfish, I must confess I have never felt so happy to be an Independent Member, especially on this most controversial issue. We have heard two sides of the argument this morning. One side charges that the actions taken by the Government have merely been with the object of wearing down the strength of the P.A.P., thereby paving the way to victory for the Labour Front in the coming elections. This side also charges the Hon. the Chief Minister as being a stooge of the colonial power. On the other hand, we have the Government side explaining to this House that the actions they have taken have been with the object of wiping out the Communist-front organisations. The Government have also charged the Member for Tanjong Pagar, the mover of the original motion, as being a Communist stooge. Ever since Government took action in the matter, I have received many letters and representations from all walks of life saying, "You must not touch this question. This is high politics. It is very dangerous if you do. You might even endanger your life." I have also received one bit of information concerning an hon. Member who has been called the champion of the people. This is to the effect that he also supports the Government's action, but, because of his Party Whip, he has not dared openly to declare his support. He is one of our prominent leaders. Sir, I think I am most lucky in that I can speak as an Independent Member without having any Party Whip to whip me to speak for the Party. This morning we have heard many words and phrases like "democracy", "the people", "civil liberties", "peaceful democratic means", "mass organisations", etc. Each side selects its own evidence and the rest of the hon. Members, depending on their point of view, are either pleased or dismayed. The struggle is now on for the battle of men's minds. But I should like to say this, Sir. There is now no room for indifference. We are all in it, Sir, although in the nature of things we dislike being made to think, to act or to support one group or the other. But after serious consideration, Sir, I must admit that I have to support the Government's action which, although regrettable, is inevitable. I say regrettable because I recall the political climate that we had at the last sitting of this House which won a unanimous vote of confidence for the Government. And now we suddenly have a storm, and a clear split in this House is obvious. Although I am not a Labour Front member, Sir, I did hear candidates from that Party during the last elections telling the people that their Party was not happy about the Banishment Ordinance and the Emergency Regulations and they promised the people that if they were returned, they would repeal or review these two measures. But now the Labour Front finds that it has to use these unpopular and undemocratic measures in the interests of the people. What is also regrettable is that I am afraid that among the arrested persons there was, I think, at least one whom I would term as a political scapegoat. I believe many of the real leaders of the subversive elements are still at large. I will take this opportunity to quote one example of what I term a political scapegoat. Mr Chen Kwang Fung was one of those arrested. He was the Chairman of the Chinese Primary School Teachers' Union. I wonder if the Government can give me an assurance that his arrest had nothing to do with his activities in the field of Chinese education. Sir, I have personal knowledge that after the publication of the Government White Paper on Chinese Education, Chinese education circles have had fears and worries over the Government's policy. I do not know how many times I have said it - that the Chinese are really worried over Government's policy on Chinese education and their doubts and fears up till now have still not been removed. Although the implementation of Government's policy on Chinese education has not gathered full force, the Chinese community is still worried. If the Chinese schools accept the full aid scheme, the future of Chinese education, they fear, will not be secure. Although the full aid scheme has been in operation for at least two years now, I think slightly over a hundred Chinese schools have accepted it. Therefore recently I was approached by many Chinese educational circles, and one of them was Mr Chen Kwang Fung, on how best to tackle this problem. I felt that it was not the time for us to oppose the full aid scheme. I said that the best way to tackle the problem was to call a meeting of all Chinese school principals and management committees to discuss how we were going to accept the full aid scheme and how we were going to secure an assurance from the Government that (1) The school committees' administrative power would not be jeopardised; (2) That their curriculum would not be jeopardised too; (3) That the opening up of classes was also not to be limited. Further, on the question of Malayanisation of Chinese textbooks, we desired to seek clarification from the Government on the word "Malayanisation". The Chinese are afraid that the Government is going to use the opportunity of malayanising Chinese textbooks to lower their standards. They are afraid because, for over a year now, the Government has not sincerely carried out the policy of bilingual education. They feel it has now become one-sided. Sir, bilingual education has already proved to be successful in Chinese schools but not in English schools. The extent of the Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages taught in the English schools is insufficient to convince the Chinese that the Government's promise of equality in the sphere of education for all races is being fulfilled.

Order. I am just wondering whether the hon. Member can indicate how that is relevant to the motion.

Sir, these remarks have been made because I think it is my duty to find out whether Mr Chen Kwang Fung's arrest was connected with the activities of the proposed calling of a Chinese school conference. Sir, I have personal knowledge of Mr Chen Kwang Fung. So, Sir, based on all the facts that I have stated above, we felt that the calling of a Chinese school conference was very urgent and essential in discussing the Government full aid scheme. It was not a political manoeuvre, nor was the meeting called for political interests. We did not intend to go round to people and say, "We must oppose the full aid scheme. Anything that the Government does, we must oppose." We did not mean that. I convinced Mr Chen Kwang Fung that we must hold a meeting to discuss the matter and at the same time seek certain assurances from the Government. But we did not call a conference in order to oppose the Government. Sir, I just wish to seek an assurance from the Government that the arrest of Mr Chen Kwang Fung was not connected with this proposal to hold a Chinese school conference. Now, let me touch on what I have said, that it was inevitable that Government should take the action it did. Why inevitable? Because the extremist movement (I am not a Member of the Government, so I cannot term it as subversive or Communist - moreover, I do not know what that is) after 2nd April has terribly jeopardised the stability of this country. It has definitely not done any good for the independence movement, and I think it should be checked in time. It is up to the Government to do it at the right time. Sir, I now wish to say a few worth about public opinion. Just now we have heard one side say that it is doing this and that in the interests of the people.. But the other side says, "No, that is not in the interests of the people." Unfortunately, I have to admit that the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member sitting behind him and their Party are closely connected with the dissolved organisations and the arrested persons. As an Independent, I should like to say that they should not claim to be doing things in the interests of the people when, in fact, they are doing them in the interests of the People's Action Party. I take this opportunity to' say this: If any organisations or any leaders want to claim themselves as civic organisations or civic leaders, they should clearly cut themselves away from any political connections. These organisations should bear in mind that if they want to fight for their stand as civic organisations, they should never enter politics. Also, these civic leaders should not become their advisers. Do not use these organisations for party interests. If there is a civic leader who wants to support your Party, then invite him to enrol as your Party member. But these organisations and leaders should not go round telling the people, "No, we are fighting for all. We are fighting for liberty for all. We are not fighting for party interests." We cannot deny the fact that the dissolved organisations and the arrested persons were closely connected with a political Party. Sir, I wish to tell the Government the true facts, and that is, that the feelings among the Parties over this issue are clearly divided - among the intellectuals, between the English-educated and the Chinese-educated. Feelings are also divided between the intelligentsia and the illiterate. Sir, I wish the Government would take note that the masses have long been wooed and controlled by a certain extremist group and this group is irresponsible and does not have the real interests of the people of Singapore. Therefore, the illiterate masses must be well informed in the most effective way and by the quickest means possible. Sir, with this in view, I urge the Government to make its actions fully understood by the public. I think the easiest way to do this is to consider releasing certain details in the report of the findings of these arrests and, if possible, when these people appeal (I am very happy that the Government has accepted their appeals), that every elected Minister should sink his party interests and consider every case according to his conscience. I hope they will be given a fair trial, and that those who are proved innocent will be released. We should also like a repeat assurance from the Hon.the Chief Minister that his Government's recent actions have been taken in the interests of the people and have nothing to do with these three factors: (1) Party politics; (2) As a result of influence brought to bear by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, especially from the Special Branch; (3) As a result of an inducement from the British Colonial Secretary, Mr Lennox-Boyd. Sir, I wonder how many times I have stressed the importance of unity in our independence movement. I wonder how many times I have appealed to all political Party leaders to sink their petty grievances and suppress their desire to play party politics, at least until after we have achieved Merdeka. Sir, if we want to go all out for Merdeka, let us try and remember that the word "Merdeka" itself does not come from Malaya but is borrowed from Indonesia.

Indonesia borrowed it from us.

So let us follow the example of Indonesia. Let us just support one leader and one voice in our independence movement. Look around Singapore today. Different Parties have different explanations for the simple word "Merdeka" and for the expression "in the interests of the people". I am very happy indeed, Sir, to see so many political Party leaders today professing to be disciples of Mr Nehru, especially the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I wish that he can really succeed in doing what Mr Nehru has done for the people of India. Mr Nehru was not only the leader of the farmers, the students or the workers. He is the national leader for all classes and all races in India. Why cannot all political Parties emulate him? Why be overbearing, petty, class-conscious and incapable of winning the confidence of the masses? Why should we only want to make a leader of a certain class or of a certain race? I cannot understand this. Sir, it is most disheartening to me to see such a wide gulf of misunderstanding between the intelligentsia and the masses in Singapore. I will quote one example. If a house is beyond repair, it must be pulled down and a new one put up. But if it can be repaired, why pull it down? Countries like Russia and China, after they had been torn by civil strifes and because of their low standard of living, naturally had to turn to Marxism to help them rebuild. Political leaders, let us be practical. Look around you. Singapore today probably enjoys the highest living standard in South-East Asia. Sir, to go back to my analogy of the house: if we just remove certain white and red ants that are infesting the house, it will then become beautiful and its foundations will remain strong. If anyone wants to introduce extremism in Singapore, I term him either a member of the elite or a useless genius. Now is the time for us to bridge all misunderstandings and work as one solid united body aspiring towards Merdeka. We must learn from the lessons of India, Indonesia and Burma and see how they reaped their independence harvest. How are we going to produce leaders like Gandhi, Sukarno and General U Aung Sang?

What about Lee Kuan Yew?

Give him a chance! Train him! Hsueh hsi! Sir, I would like to take this opportunity, although he is not in, to advise the Hon. the Chief Minister that he must not be overjoyed and over-confident because of the many praises that he has received from the whole world, especially from the Western bloc and the United States, for his recent actions. Sir, I wish to point out that although I want Singapore to be united and to be Asia and Africa conscious, I am sure the Chief Minister would not like to be a second Syngman Rhee of South Korea or a Chiang Kai-shek of Formosa. In conclusion, Sir, I will say why I support the amendment moved by the Chief Minister. I confess that at first I did decide to move an amendment of my own but not on these lines. The Chief Minister's amendment has been cleverly divided into two parts, the first of which reads: "...takes note of the recent arrests of six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one person under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the dissolution of two societies...". Sir, nobody can condemn this - that this House takes note of these acts. The second part of his amendment says: "...and welcomes the strong action taken by the Government against subversive elements in Singapore." I do not know whether any decent and right-thinking people can oppose the Government for taking strong action against subversive elements. Therefore, I beg to support the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to add my mite as a Nominated Member to a debate that is essentially the pigeon of elected Members. I listened rather sadly to the Cassandra-like utterances of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) which I am certain the outside world will heavily discount if ever it gets round to reading them in detail. I have the greatest admiration for the gifts of the hon. Member and I wish that his prophetic zeal could have been used on the other side; not the colonial side but the anti-Communist side. Once again, the Member for Tanjong Pagar used his device of ridiculing by reading in a particular way some of the complimentary things said about the Chief Minister in the English Press. Now the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) has already mentioned the stock market. The reference to a rise in the local share market particularly got under his skin although he said that he was amused by it but he doubtless thinks that the said rise is due to the machinations and manipulations of capitalist speculators. In fact, the improvement in the local stock market has merely brought the quotations for these local companies up to where they would normally have been if it had not been for the series of crises that we have had in this island over the last 18 months. This rise in the stock markets which the hon. Member was so contemptuous of is a clear indication that business and trade interests, on which this island depends, and the people welcome wholeheartedly the vigorous and courageous action of Government. Sir, the inescapable fact is that Singapore is divided into two camps - Communist and anti-Communist - and on one side, as plainly as the nose on one's face, especially a European nose, is the People's Action Party. The frequent references by their spokesmen to their desire to build up a democratic, non-Communist Malaya are to my mind merely over-protesting, as today's speeches have clearly indicated, but even if their leaders are not true Communists surely no one doubts but that their ranks are thick with Reds. I used to give the People's Action Party credit for being consistent. Their leaders urged early union with the Federation and warned against the dangers of delay. Now it would seem to me they are doing everything in their power to keep these two territories apart. Obviously, the Federation Government can only view with the gravest misgivings the manifestations of Communist activities in this city though the fact that these have been brought out into the open recently may be a good thing. I was particularly interested in some of the points made by the Minister for Education this afternoon and I must say that I learned a great deal from what he said. It struck me while he was speaking that one of the most contemptible devices used by the Communists is their so-called anti-yellow culture campaign which they use to further their political ends. Yellow culture, of course, is as old as time but according to the Communists or even according to some of the spokesmen of the People's Action Party, it flourishes only under colonialism. Now, anti-yellow culture they say cannot be separated from the fight for national independence and for getting rid of colonial rule. Only when Singapore has uprooted yellow culture, they say, can she flourish. What rubbish! Men may be good or evil but in the latter case, it is their hearts that you have to change, not their politics. What is there I wonder, Mr Speaker, in dialectical materialism or the atheistic creed of Communism to change men's hearts or to rid their minds of pornography? Yet the Communists would link the anti-yellow movement with the Merdeka movement to fight for independence. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us have some sweet reason. Is not the use of the words "struggle" and "fight" in the way they are always used today in the "struggle and fight against colonialism" sense, really a sort of euphemism in reverse? Is there any real fight or struggle? Is it still believed that the wicked Colonial Office, as distinct from the British Government, will double-cross Malaya and Singapore and refuse to grant self-government? To my mind, this colony is approaching self-government more rapidly than anyone here ever expected it would do and it would be a far, far better thing if all references to the so-called evils - many of them imaginary - of a dying regime were dropped once and for all. References to "the people" have come up again - the point I have touched on before in this House. The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) has said, according to what I read in the Press that the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union has 30,000 members and this doubtless is "the people" to whom he refers. It should be noted however that this figure is only 2� per cent of the population of the island of Singapore. According to the hopelessly biased Straits Times, the hon. Member (Mr Lim Ching Siong) regards the English-language Press as hostile to the people - hostile to his 2� per cent, I suppose - and according to this newspaper he stated, and I quote from the Straits Times: "I object to newspaper reports about the existence of an anti-Communist group which has distributed leaflets in schools." Surely this reveals with the clearest of clearness that the gentleman is pro-Communist, and the difference between a pro-Communist and a Communist cannot be, to my mind, very great. Finally, Sir, the point which was raised by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). The Hon. the Chief Minister in a speech made in this Assembly on 25th July, 1955, gave a definition of the people of Singapore. He was prompted to do so because of questions asked by me and, he said, in giving his answer, to improve my political education. This was his definition: "The people of Singapore ... are the people who are represented by their representatives in this Assembly, and in a democracy, the majority view represents the view of the people." The Hon. the Chief Minister will, no doubt, be pleased to know that I gave attention to his words and I now offer them to the People's Action Party. Sir, I support the amendment to the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed a sad spectacle - at least it is for me - to see one who is so able and talented as the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) misdirecting his energies and talent to attacking the Government. And for what? For protecting the people of Singapore from subversion. Sir, I suggest he can better utilise his talents and energies towards more constructive work. It was, Sir, a touching experience to hear him speak without conviction in his own heart. Sir, as is usual with the People's Action Party and those that are behind them, to cloak the real reasons for Government's action, they try to put forward the argument for the benefit of their followers that the real reason why Government took this strong action was to wipe out opposition so that the Government could come in with a thumping victory in the next elections. Sir, this is a wilful distortion of facts. Nothing is further away from the minds of the Members of the Government. In fact, we could have expected that sort of a line if we did not have this elected Government in power but if we had members of the People's Action Party in power today. Sir, they set themselves up as champions of Merdeka. Merdeka for what and Merdeka for whom? Merdeka for that minority group who, the moment they get Merdeka, will set themselves up as dictators? The Member stated that he would not mind it so much if the Government had a team of men with courage, ability and integrity to pursue their aim methodically. Sir, I have a suspicion that he was advocating blind ruthlessness. I, Sir, as one who believes in democracy, will never be a party to blind ruthlessness. Those may be the tactics that he and his Back-benchers employ but, Sir, a government that is democratically elected, that is, through democracy, cannot pursue a policy of blind ruthlessness. The Government will be firm no doubt in dealing with subversion but the Government will act with consideration and will consider every case as it has been doing, with thoroughness so that no person will lose his liberty just because of blind ruthlessness. The Member also mentioned about the boom in the share market and the happiness of the merchants and members of the Chambers of Commerce. Sir, what is wrong if happiness is expressed by the merchants and by members of the Chambers of Commerce? They are as integral a part of our society as are the workers and, Sir, we must remember that our workers find employment as a result of the commercial activities of these merchants. If we have Merdeka, do we want a Merdeka where everyone has employment or do we want to scare away these merchants and then achieve a Merdeka where there is unemployment and poverty amongst the people? The Member pleaded for free play of ideas within the constitutional framework. Sir, that is a very desirable idea and it should be encouraged as much as possible provided there is no hitting below the belt by both sides; but as we know the tactics of these subversive elements, they work like termites. All of a sudden one fine day you discover that the very foundations of your house have been attacked and the house is about to tumble down. Sir, with that sort of subversion, you cannot be too democratic but still the Government does give a lot of consideration to every individual case. We thoroughly dislike, Sir, the use of the Banishment Ordinance and detentions under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and so on, but if we are to carry out the trust that has been placed by the people of Singapore in us, it is an action that we cannot escape. We have to do it and we have to be firm about it. The Member is afraid that at the moment we may have a conscience but that, later on, as time progresses, our conscience may start thinning out and in the end we may end up as dictators. What would have happened, Sir, if his Party had been in power today? Probably they would not have started with a conscience at all. Sir, it is a popular fallacy and propaganda to term those who do not follow certain ideologies as non-Asians, as anti-Asians, and so on. In Asia today, you have three types of ideologies: there are certain lands with a Communist ideology; there are certain lands and people who do not believe in Communism and have adopted a democratic way of life; and then there are others who being democratic will not take sides, like India and certain other countries who are termed what is called neutrals. Does the Member say that all those who do not follow the Communist ideology are not Asians? The Member also said that the people of Singapore do not like the strong action that the Government has taken. But, Sir, who are the people of Singapore? If he means to say that the people of Singapore are only those few thousands that are represented by the People's Action Party and by the unions that are behind the People's Action Party, there are hundreds of thousands of others who are not with the People's Action Party. What about them? Are they not the people of Singapore too? I say, Sir, that those who are with the Government today are in the majority. Sir, I do hope that the Member for Tanjong Pagar will realise that it is not to the liking of the Government that this action has been taken but it is like a medicine that has got to be swallowed. Sir, if we have a cancer in our body whether we like it or not we have to undergo an operation. Doctors do not like to perform operations but they have got to operate to remove the cancer and that is what our position is today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I am speaking today not only as a Minister of the Coalition Government but also as the leader of the Alliance in the Government. Invariably, Sir, when statements are made by the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union or other organisations connected with the Union referring to the Government of Singapore, they refer to it as the Labour Front Government. It is, Sir, the' Labour Front Coalition Government and I am proud to say that I and my Party are also responsible for the actions that have been taken by Government. If you remember correctly, Sir, on the 20th of September, soon after the arrests of the seven subversive elements, six of them to be banished, a statement came out from Middle Road to the effect that Government had acted unwisely because six of the proposed banishees were people who were going to fight for the Merdeka of this island. This morning, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister made it very clear that the proposed banishees were all born outside Malaya. I say, Sir, that if anyone at all is going to fight for the Merdeka of this island, it is we, the people of Singapore, the citizens of Singapore, who should fight for Merdeka and not foreigners. One last point, Sir, and this tickles me to death. The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) - I believe it was last week - when he referred to the Ministers of the elected Government, he referred to us as colonial stooges. This morning, Sir, we have been reduced from that rank to Quislings. Sir, I know what Quislings are. They are the people who after the last war were put up against the wall and shot to death, rightly or wrongly. Presumably, Sir, when the People's Action Party comes into power, we, the Quislings on this side, will be put up against the wall and shot to death, as the Quislings in Europe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) and the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) have already voiced the opinion of my Party. I am just here to add a few more points. Nobody in this world likes restrictions. Nobody in this world likes arbitrary power to be placed in the hands of anybody. In fact, if these were normal times, we would be the first to ask Government to repeal all these laws that give absolute power to Government. During the past and especially during the election campaign, many Parties, including the Labour Front, thought that it would be a good move to remove the emergency powers. They tried to live up to that promise but however after being in government for some time, they found that it was necessary to retain those powers, but to retain them in a more palatable form in the name of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. At the time of the debate on the Preservation of Public Security Bill, I believe that that Bill received the unanimous approval of the House and that was the expression of the people about the state of affairs in Singapore. Of course, when Government is using it today, it is using the power that is entrusted to it by the people. When we give certain powers to Government, we expect the Government to use them, but we must always ask Government to use them after very careful consideration. This morning, I heard two sides of the story. I expected to hear a very good defence put up by the People's Action Party but I was really disappointed. On the other hand, the accounts by the Ministers on the opposite Benches have given me a clear picture. As an Assemblyman in this House, I am not in a position to look into the Government files for details of why those people were arrested and I think that this morning's debate will give the people of Singapore a chance to know what was really behind all the arrests. In fact, one `day, I was confronted with a question by the President of the Federation of Women's Association, Linda Chen. She came along to me and asked me to support her in her anti-yellow movement and she asked me these questions: "Why do people accuse me of being a Communist? Why do people say that the anti-yellow movement is a Communist organisation?" The answer I gave her was this, "Ask yourself. As far as I am concerned, I know nothing about it and if you think that people are asking you these questions, search yourself. Probably there is something behind these questions." Of course, the Government this morning gave their reply to her questions. Now, whenever an action is taken by any one Party, there is always a great deal of suspicion by others. This morning, we heard accusations that the Government had made a pact with the Colonial Office. This, I think, is due to the suspicion of one Party against another. In fact, during the last Merdeka talks, we were wrongly accused of making a pact with the Colonial Office when there was no truth in that whatsoever, and I believe probably this may be the same case. Having experienced false accusation once, I can understand the Government a little bit better when it is placed in such a position. However, whatever the outcome, the people of Singapore must realise that in order to retain the greatest amount of freedom, we must sacrifice a small portion of it and leave it to the wise decision of the Government. And to the Government, we say: So long as you use it wisely, carefully and with a great deal of consideration, we will support such action.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems from the P.A.P. and their supporters' point of view that any opinion which differs from theirs must be wrong and that any reports of support other than for the Middle Road group must be fictitious. Because they have indulged in this game of deceit so often, they are automatically led to believe that other people must be doing likewise. In the last two weeks, Sir, I have been approached by a number of people comprising businessmen, professional men, teachers, students, labourers, and so on. Without exception, all of them wished to tell me how glad they were of the Government's action in the recent detentions of these troublemakers. They even said, "We have a hope now that the teachers can really teach, the students can really study and the workmen can work peacefully without intimidation and interference from the Middle Road group." Some people went further and said, "The Government should detain more and for those whom we cannot deport, we are quite prepared to contribute to their support in gaol." Such are the opinions of the people of Singapore. The point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) this morning was that we are supposed to be a caretaker Government. Surely, he does not think that because we are a caretaker Government, we should refrain from governing. If that is so, then what is the purpose of forming a Government? We might as well hand it over to the Permanent Secretaries. Another point raised by the same Member was that all that was done by the Government to prevent its defeat in the coming elections. I think we on this side of the House do not regard the result of the next elections so important as the P.A.P. We consider that our duty is to govern and that if we govern well, we do not care very much about the result of the next elections a bit but we sincerely believe that if we are going to carry on what we have already started, we will be returned in spite of whatever propaganda the P.A.P. may put over against us. These 9 people are detained under the Ordinances approved by this House which were specially drawn up to deal with this type of cases. To say that the Government is undemocratic because they have to carry out duties entrusted to them is to say that we should close the Assembly and carry out public trials as we have in Communist China. Therefore I would like to ask all Members of this House who have the future of Singapore at heart to support the amended motion of the Hon. the Chief Minister to deal a blow to these subversive elements which, if left unchecked, will definitely lead us to a similar fate as other Communist-dominated countries in this part of the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister appears to me to negative my motion. But if you are satisfied that this does not infringe the rules of debate in this Assembly, then no more need be said about it. There are two types of speeches we have heard today: from the Government, those who are involved in the administration, and speeches from the Liberal-Socialist Party Members who have been supported so "joyously" by Mr Sutherland. Then there were two Independents who went one each way. The whole tenor of the Government's speeches was completely negative: "They are subversive. I have the information that they are subversive. We intend to deal with them firmly. We will deal with them firmly. We know what we are doing and we will march on to democracy." Then comes the Minister for Education with his most interesting speech in which whole extracts of propaganda material of the Chinese Middle Schools Students' Union were given a great deal of publicity. But the depressing thing about it all is that none of the speakers made any attempt to understand what this is all about. "Communism is an unmitigated evil. We are determined to fight it. They are white ants. They are red ants. We shall squash them." How? By locking them up? You might succeed if you could be as ruthless as Hitler. You get them and put them in the gas chamber. You get their books and you burn them. But Hitler failed. They are not as ruthless as Hitler, not this Government anyway. Not that they do not have the inclinations if given the opportunities, but I do not think they have sufficient ruthlessness of moral character. As the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing said, he is somewhat worried because he might be put up against the wall and shot when it is all over. An hon. Member: I am sure you meant that.

No, Sir, not if the P.A.P. wins an election. If there is going to be an armed revolution in Malaya, then that may well happen. But if you are prepared to let this revolution resolve itself by peaceful competition and peaceful parliamentary and constitutional methods, then you will avoid those unpleasant consequences of a violent revolution. There is an astonishing blissful ignorance of what this is all about. Does anybody in this House believe that if they just lock up all the trouble-makers in all these trade unions and get voluntary contributions from wealthy people and architects like the Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam) to feed them in gaol, that they can keep them locked up for ever, that one day they will not have to release them? They will come out more fervent, more determined than when the Government put them in, more skilful in their methods of propaganda and their tactics of violent revolution. Assuming that you want to play the fair way, one day, sooner or later, you will have to say: "Well, everything is all right. We will let them out." Or you banish them. So, many great revolutionaries were in exile. Ho Chi-minh was in exile for years and years. Then one day he went back to his country and the revolution leavened until finally the French met the Vietminh on the battlefield and got themselves destroyed. You can only fight this if you have something positive. If you have your ideas. Then you can fight to propagate those ideas. I have heard with astonishment the Minister for Education deriding this hsueh hsi method. There is one thing about the Communist which wins my admiration. He picks up what is good from the other side. He is not blind. If you have something good, he takes it over, like "Merdeka", anything which is good. But if the Communists have something good, because they have started it, you say, "No, it is Communist. We will not have it." How else can you marshal the people on your side if you do not propagate your ideas, if you do not have news-sheets, microphones, and workers to put over your ideas and plans that will solve the evils of this society? Is the Government going to sit back and say, "Look, this is trouble-making and anybody who does this will upset my shares and then there will be no business. Then what will happen to the workers? We must stop it. We will suppress it."? They have tried it in other parts of the world and they have failed and the result was a violent revolution. Hearing the speeches today, I think Lenin is right: Bourgeois institutions will in the last resort use force to keep down a revolution. They will not give in. There are two ways of fighting a revolution. One way is by peaceful competition which the democrats all say they believe in. "You propagate your ideas peacefully, persuade the people to vote for you. You win and you take over." That is the theory. When I learned my constitutional law I was told that a parliamentary democracy was the acme of perfection of man's political organisations. In Britain, for 400 years, there have been no violent revolutions because one had this interplay within a system which allowed changes to take place by peaceful persuasion. If a group gets the majority of people to vote for them, then automatically they assume power. There is continuity in the government. They can introduce their legislation and bring about the changes they desire. The theory is that if the British Communist Party could put up a sufficient number of candidates and be able either by political persuasion or propaganda or other constitutional means of political leadership to get the majority of the people to vote for them, then they would become the lawfully constituted and elected government of the people. I believed that once upon a time. The Communists were accused of being evil men who believed in violent revolution for the sake of violent revolution, who did not want to compete peacefully and who did not want to test one idea against another idea. The whole international Communist and anti-Communist position has changed with the hydrogen bomb. The whole international Communist philosophy is undergoing a radical change with de-Stalinisation. peaceful co-existence, peaceful competition. Openly, the Kremlin now says to European Communist Parties, "Cooperate with other Socialist organisations. You can win power by democratic and parliamentary processes." And the West says, "Look, this must be a great conspiracy. We must be the loser somewhere. No, we will not co-operate. We will not allow you to win and compete in a democratic parliamentary fashion." It is one of those things which depress those who have been liberally educated because they assumed that what they were told was honestly believed. Later they discover that, in fact, all those pious protestations about the virtues of democracy were not quite true. Once upon a time the Americans said that the Russians wanted to conquer the world by force. Therefore they had to arm and fight the Russians. Then one day, Moscow said, "We are going to disarm." And Mr Dulles said, "This is a great threat because I would rather have a Russian soldier in uniform in non-productive work than in a factory in productive work because then he will compete with me economically." The whole world picture is undergoing a change and little men in Singapore do not understand that we are a part of a world revolution. This is the greatest revolution in the history of mankind. For the first time in the history of man, he is trying to establish an egalitarian society. I believe the process towards such a society is inevitable. We can reach it by one of two ways. We either have it by peaceful evolution or we have it by violent revolution. The only difference between a democratic Left-wing Socialist and a Communist is this: The Communist believes that it is impossible to have peaceful evolution and that force is necessary to crush vested interests who will prevent a workers' revolution. The Socialist believes it is possible to have peaceful evolution. If this policy of repression is pursued, if this is the policy in Malaya, then the Communists are right. There is little room for Left-wing Socialists who preach social revolution by constitutional methods because those now in power will not let the Communists win constitutionally. The Communists cannot compete constitutionally. They are out of the race. They will not let them stand for elections because they are subversive. What I say is this. The Government may have information of the guilt of these six men. The Government may not have this information. The Special Branch may be right, the Special Branch may be wrong. But to put the argument at its highest for the Government, even if, in fact, these six men believe in Communism - the question still remains whether they are prepared to compete constitutionally and peacefully. If they have never done anything which is not peaceful or constitutional, then you are negating your whole political philosophy when you say, "I will arrest you because I think you are propagating an idea which I consider pernicious and which I propose to stop and prevent from spreading." Does anyone honestly believe that by banning hsueh hsi and a few Chinese books it is possible to stop the spread of ideas? Nehru once said that ideas are the greatest weapons in the world since they know no custom barriers and national frontiers. If you do not have equally powerful ideas to make people believe that what you are doing is right and will bring about a better society, if you are bankrupt of ideas and all you can say is, "1 am going to checkmate you. I will lock you up. I will break you up", then I say the end result is a foregone conclusion. I said earlier - and I was not inciting the Labour Front to be ruthless - that they have one chance in a million of making it succeed and it is this, It is like building up your local industry. First you say to yourself, "All right, I am too weak to compete. So I put up trade barriers, custom tariffs and I build up my industries." But can you do that forever? Does anybody believe that that is the way in which to build up the economy of a country? Eventually, you will have to face conditions in the world, not conditions just in Singapore. As for the Liberal-Socialist Party, they are even worse than the Government. The leader of the Party, the Member for Serangoon, was reported in the Press as saying, when I made an application to the Hon. the Chief Minister to have an emergency sitting of the Assembly: "The Chief Minister knows something about it. The P.A.P. knows something about it. I am all in the dark. I do not know anything about it." And not knowing anything about it, his Party magazine comes straight out in full support of the Government, right or wrong, whatever it is all about, arrest the boys. That is the spirit. "It is time for a showdown", says the editorial report of 30th September. That is the way they compete. They have got no ideas. They are politically bankrupt. If we say we are Socialists, and we win elections, he says he is also a Socialist. Why, Mr Sutherland wondered, was I amused? I was amused because Members like the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) did not understand that there is an inherent contradiction in the Government's position. The Government today is rallying around it all the reactionary forces, all the riff-raff, and depending on that support. Yet if the Government is honest in its aim of a Socialist society, then it will have to subdue these forces that support it. Does the Government honestly believe that Mr Clayton of the European Chamber of Commerce upon whose support it depends will sit idly by if they move against his interests? Why have industrial shares gone up? Because they now believe that perhaps for five years - maybe ten or fifteen years if they are lucky and they can keep the situation under control - their enterprises are going to produce profits, for all these years and not be confiscated. On the other hand, if the P.A.P. comes in, it is certain that taxation will go up. It is also certain that labour costs will go up. And it is probable that once their managerial and technical contribution is no longer required they might be bought out. Therefore share prices will drop. I said this morning that the Government had one chance in a million, and that was putting it very generously. I do not want to use Communist phrases like "self-review", but I ask this Government honestly to search their hearts and ask themselves whether the steps they are taking are more in the interest of the people or - whether they intend it or not - in the interest of European investors in this country? Let us accept, at face value, the protestations of the Hon. the Chief Minister that he made this decision himself with no promptings from anyone, that, in fact, the European officials stood by while six elected local Ministers decided that they were going to wade in and settle things where the British Army, Navy and Air Force have not been able so to do for the last eight years. What has the Chief Minister got that the British did not have? Only one thing, namely, that he is an Asian and the people might get confused. Because now instead of the white man versus the rest, it is the rest versus the rest. Then he gets all the riff-raff, kindergartens, libraries, etc, lining up on his side and the men with the ideals, whatever their ultimate political convictions, on the other side. Everybody talks of the masses. The masses are important because if you give one man one vote, then you have to take him into account. But I shudder when I think of the complete naivety with which they approach the problem of revolution in Malaya. It is not just a question of counting up unions and associations and then saying, "I have got more on my side." "I have been round my constituency", says the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). He was elected by a lot of European expatriates - who should never have been given a vote in the first place. "They tell me in the rural areas that the Government's action is in the right spirit and we will support you." Well, if they honestly believe in this, let us have an election. I do not think anybody really believes this. But we do know that the phoney phase is over. These are men who have now taken their lives into their own hands. They have decided for the right or wrong reasons to take this decision. If they cannot get the men who are prepared to organise the masses on their side, then how are they going to get the masses on their side? In every union, in every society, in every political Party, in every office, it is only a small group of people who are prepared to undertake responsibilities, to fight and to work for their beliefs and ideals. They must find these men. Give them those beliefs, beliefs of an egalitarian democratic society. Then these men will fight with them and organise the masses. But if they find only lounge-lizards, bar-lizards, and directors of companies supporting them, who is going to organise the masses on their behalf? I can understand a Right-wing group like the Liberal-Socialist Party, the Democrats-cum-Progressives. They are not interested in organising the masses and raising the standard of living. They are interested in more industry, more profits which they say will benefit the workers because they will give more employment. But here is a Party that believes in an egalitarian society. But it is taking all the steps which make it unlikely for an egalitarian society to come about. Mr Speaker, Sir, this morning I touched lightly on one point and perhaps Mr Sutherland may be right on this, that the developments in Malaya are such that we will soon reach a point where you are either Communist or anti-Communist and that there is no room for anybody who says, "Let us have peaceful competition." Without any pretext, the Government has dissolved organisations which are not involved in any trouble and has locked up individuals who have not done anything violent. This Government will find that there will be, as there was in China and in IndoChina, a flight of the intellectuals away from them. And intellectuals do matter. They may have only one vote and may not matter from the point of view of that one vote. But from the point of view of organising the masses and influencing them, their desertion will make the result catastrophic. In the end at best they will establish a society like South Korea. They have some form of democracy. They have some kind of Parliament. They even allow opposition. But when the Vice-President gets difficult and looks like giving the President trouble, the Vice-President is shot by an unknown assassin. They may establish that kind of democracy. But how long can it last, unless it is sustained by the strength of our own people? I ask this Government to remember this. We may lose this debate because of the peculiar set-up in this Assembly. But we will never lose our self-respect by either wittingly or unwittingly collaborating with those whose interests are so opposed to ours that any genuine cooperation is impossible. The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support wholeheartedly the amended motion moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister. Sir, my Party is giving its full support to the amended motion of the Hon. the Chief Minister. As true believers of democracy, we do believe that the action taken by the Government in arresting the six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance was fully scrutinised by the Council of Ministers with honesty, sincerity and justice. This morning, the Hon.the Chief Minister assured this House that they had considered the matter with the greatest care before the arrests were made. I do believe, Sir, the assurance, and my Party and I fully support the Hon.the Chief Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arising from this long debate, there is one vital question which we must all ask ourselves and that question is: "Is there any country in the world which does not reserve to itself the power to get rid of aliens whose actions are not conducive to the welfare of the country?" If there is such a country, I shall be very sorry for the people living in that country. As to the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance under which certain persons have been detained, this Ordinance was copied from a similar law existing in India. Asia today looks to India for guidance. The name of Mr Nehru has been mentioned; we respect him; we like to take his lead and we have taken his lead when we introduced the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Sir, I would ask every one to consider very carefully, not only Members of this Assembly but all people in Singapore who are capable of thinking for themselves, the question whether there is any country in this world that does not reserve to itself the right to get rid of aliens who are dangerous to the welfare of the country. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 5; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Goh Chew Chua. Butterfield, C. H. Lazarous. A. R. Chew Swee Kee. Lee Kuan Yew. Ede, John. Lim Ching Siong. Goh Tong Liang. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Abstentions Jumabhoy, J. M. Nil. Jumabhoy, R. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Absent Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Tan Theng Chiang. Nair, M. P. D. Tan, William Ong Piah Teng. Thomas, Francis. Seah Peng Chuan. Sutherland, G. A. P. Wong Foo Nam. Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House takes note of the recent arrests of six persons under the Banishment Ordinance and one person under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the dissolution of two societies, and welcomes the strong action taken by the Government against subversive elements in Singapore.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 5.45 p.m. to the 5th day of November, 1956.