Hansard, 1956-11-05

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Ong Piah Teng - six weeks from 31st October, 1956.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor dated 10th October, 1956, informing me that His Excellency has, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, assented to the following Bills: (i) Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Singapore Telephone Board (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Silver Jubilee Fund (Singapore) (Amendment No. 2) Bill; v) Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Public Trustee (Amendment) Bill; (vii) Dangerous Drugs (Temporary Provisions) Bill; (viii) Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill.

I have to announce to Honourable Members that on the 29th day of October, 1956, I received a communication from the Hon. the Chief Secretary informing me that the Honourable Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) has been detained by the Police under the provisions of section 17 (1) (b) of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (No. 25 of 1955).

Shame!

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he is aware that there is no bus service along Holland Road from the Ulu Pandan Road junction to the Bukit Timah Road junction, and what steps are being taken to provide public transport for the people in this area.

This is a matter for the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority which authorises the issue of licences for bus routes throughout the island. I understand an application for an omnibus service licence to include this part of Holland Road was considered and unanimously rejected by the Authority on the 17th of May.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that the new lecture block now in use at the Teachers' Training College has been without electricity for the past six months since its completion, and what steps are being taken in this matter.

Yes, I am aware that the Teachers' Training College has been without electricity for about six months since its completion. The City Council demanded a monthly payment of $1,080 before it would agree to connect up the supply. It is estimated that the actual consumption would be only $300 a month and the Department had been trying to persuade the City Council to modify its demand, but without success. To avoid further inconvenience, it was recently decided to accept the City Council's terms.

10.04 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent riots are still uppermost in our minds. These have been extensively reported in the Press and hon. Members are already in possession of most of the facts. I would like to give a clear picture so that hon. Members can be fully informed. Speaking on my amendment to the motion of the Member for Tanjong Pagar at the last sitting of this Assembly, I said: "...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." Sir, my amendment had the overwhelming support of this House which was given in answer to my call which was contained in the following words: "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." Five Members, Sir, have so declared themselves and the air in this House is the better for it. Recent events have since proved the justification and wisdom of the Government's action which has brought to light the evil planning of subversive elements that has been going on to build up a powerful force to overthrow democratic government. Since the commencement of the Government's action on the 18th September to the 24th October, before the riots took place, 15 persons were arrested under the Banishment Ordinance and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and seven Communist-front organisations were dissolved under the Societies Ordinance. This action was striking at the root of the evil forces. The Government was gradually but inexorably winning the fight. On 24th September the Singapore Chinese Middle Schools' Students' Union was dissolved and the Government exposed the subversive activities of this Union in a White Paper which was laid before the Assembly last month. On 1st October Soon Loh Boon, ex-President of the dissolved Union, was arrested and this was followed on 10th October by the arrests of four more Chinese Middle School student leaders and the Minister for Education required the Committees of Management of the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng School to expel 142 students whose activities in the schools have been of a subversive character. On the nights of 10th and 11th October, large numbers of students congregated in these two schools to commence a stay-in demonstration of defiance. On 12th October, at the request of the Minister for Education, the Committees of Management declared that these two schools were temporarily closed. On 13th October the Ministry of Education commenced re-registration of Chinese Middle School students for two temporary schools to be run by the Government. These were subsequently opened on 16th October. In the meantime several Middle Road organisations were becoming increasingly active in providing financial, material and moral support to the stay-in students. Of special mention, the Singapore Bus Workers Union arranged comfort visits by parties of over 600 to the Chinese High School stay-in students on 20th October, and 300 to the Chung Cheng School on 24th October, this action being complementary in nature to the similar comfort visits paid by Student Union members to the striking bus workers immediately prior to the Hock Lee riots in May 1955. On the mornings of 22nd and 23rd October large groups of students, who were believed to have come from the two stay-in schools, picketed other Chinese Middle Schools in order to enforce a general strike of Middle School students throughout Singapore. Banners were exhibited which read: "A long term suspension of classes as a protest against the Government's insincere reply to our demand". At the same time, there had been many reports of veiled intimidation to prevent the successful development of the two temporary Government schools. The Government had been patient and tolerant so far and this had been taken by the student leaders and leaders of the Middle Road bloc as a sign of weakness, which accounted for their increasing tempo of defiance of constituted authority. Something had to be done, and done quickly, to prevent such illegal activities getting out of hand and the Council of Ministers therefore decided on 23rd October to take firm action to clear the two schools. On the evening of 24th October, in a broadcast over Radio Malaya, I said: "The events of the past few days have brought to a head the situation in our Singapore middle schools. And it is not a problem of education; it is a matter of discipline in the schools, of authority in the family, and respect for the legally constituted Government of Singapore. No community can allow this persistent defiant and aggressive in discipline to continue among its element in its younger generation. Theirs is not a threat to any particular government; it is a threat to all governments of any kind. If, in the name of democracy, any group can hold the Government to ransom until it gets everything it wants, Government becomes a mere rubber stamp, and those who are the most defiant of the law, those who shout loudest and bully most threateningly and persistently, will get their way. This is the anteroom to mob rule. The student leaders have not only defied the school authorities in the schools, they have organised a campaign of misrepresentation outside the schools. They have kept students in the schools to prevent their being reopened and to prevent the students there from getting any proper education, even at the sacrifice of their opportunities of sitting their examinations. They have mobilised the parents, some of whom have been glad to join in a political campaign under the guise of supporting Chinese education, and some genuinely misted by the students. They have taken to the homes the campaign against the new schools opened by Government. The two schools have therefore become a focus of organized resistance to Government policy. Parents are urging Government to clear the situation in order that their boys and girls should be able to carry on their studies peacefully, and not to be made the pawns in a political campaign at their expenses. We have decided that we do not want the schools to be permanently infected with this fever, and carry the fever into the whole community. We want to restore the normal healthy temperature particularly in the schools where the fever can do most damage now, and even greater damage in the future when these students are the bread-winners, the citizens and the parents of tomorrow. For this reason, the Minister for Education has therefore today sent a leter to every parent of the two schools to bring them home before 8 p.m. Thursday, 25th October. For the Government has decided that the schools must be cleared, that they must cease to be schools of indiscipline in the name of Chinese culture,and becoming real schools of peaceful Chinese Culture playing their part in building the democratic self-governing Singapore of which we are on the threshold." By this time (the morning of 23rd October) the People's Action Party had held three protest meetings, the Farmers' Association had held eight protest meetings,and the Civil Rights Convention Committee had held one protest meeting.Although some of the speeches made were virulent in tone, these organisations were saying in their speeches that the protests should be carried out by constitutional means; and the attendances and reception had not so far been such as to give rise to any fear of a breach of the peace. On Tuesday, 23rd October, further speeches were made at the Civil Rights Convention Committee meeing at the 11½ milestone Yio Chu Kang Road, which were of a more inflammatory nature. On the morning of 25th October, parents and guardians began to arrive at the two stay-in schools and the police removed barricades in order to enable them to collect their sons, daughters or wards. Among those who entered were officials of the Chinese Schools' Students' Parents Friendly Association who were sympathetic towards the stay-in students and who aided with them in preventing other parents from taking their sons, daughters and wards away. The stay-in students had their own public address system through which they constantly whipped up their own morale, and they denied a hearing to any statements made over the Public Relations address vans by singing or clapping in unison. At 5 p.m. the P.A.P. held a protest meeting at the Beauty World, Bukit Timah, at which further speeches of an inflammatory nature were made by Lim Ching Siong and others, and it is believed that on the conclusion of this meeting at 7 p.m., a number of those who had attended went to join the crowds assembled in Bukit Timah Road outside the Chinese High School. The parallel between the build-up at this stage and the events of April/May 1955 was becoming increasingly apparent. On 24th October, 13 days had elapsed since the assemblies, meetings, inflammatory speeches and visits of supporting delegations of students and workers (including the bus workers) had been allowed to continue unchecked at the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng School where the stay-in students were encamped, and it became clear that if a final appeal made to the parents of school children assembled at these two schools to remove them failed, it would be necessary that these assemblies be dispersed before the same pattern of events, as in 1955, culminated in serious riots and disorders. This was the situation, Sir, when the first riot incidents developed. I do not propose to take up the time of hon. Members by giving a detailed account of the riot incidents, as these have already been reported in the Press. I would like, however, to draw attention to some of the important features. The premises of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union at Middle Road, Hongkong Street, Bukit Timah Road and Bukit Panjang were raided and several persons found therein arrested, among whom was the Member for Bukit Timah. The documents we have found in the premises only confirm how right we were in our decision to act in defence of the peace and security of the men, women and children of all races and classes in Singapore. They were planning further demonstrations in defiance of the law; and their documents are full of sentiments of the struggle. In one document is the opinion that the period of peaceful and negative struggle is over and if this time they do not show their strength for struggle, their followers will be downhearted. This is what calls itself a trade union, and not in support of any industrial dispute or any improvement of the conditions of the working people for whom they claim to exist. It is a pure political militant organisation dedicated to, and organised for, and emotionally attuned to struggle. "Death in struggle is glorious", says another document. Says yet another, "We now understand that today we have to adopt a more violent struggle." And finally, another says, "If we dare not fight, then we will be the losers." Is this the language of genuine trade unionism; or is this the language of a group of leaders of political subversion who are deceiving the workers and the public and using the difficulties of the working people not as something to be improved, but something to be exploited and magnified and manipulated as an instrument to undermine Government so that they can achieve power? Can this exploitation of the working man for selfish ends go further? In taking action against these so-called leaders, we are acting to save trade unions and trade unionism from exploitation. We seek, as we seek in the schools, to let them return to their basic purpose so that it can be more quickly and more effectively achieved in the interests of workers and pupils alike. Communist exploitation of the workers, as shown in these tactics, is as bad as capitalist exploitation and we, as a Labour Front Coalition Government, stand against both. As reported, Sir, in the Press, it is evident that the students had been preparing for a big victory march. The arrest of the Member for Bukit Timah has caused comment in some quarters. They were under the mis- apprehension that an Assemblyman was free from arrest. There is no such privilege and even a Minister of the Government can be arrested for unlawful activities. The raids conducted by the police, Sir, on the premises of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union and the arrests of the leaders found therein had brought about a significant change in the riot situation. There was an immediate subsidence of trouble. I leave it to hon. Members to draw their own conclusion. Shortly before the riots, the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union withdrew $120,000 which amounted to 80 per cent of their funds. Previous withdrawals amounted to only $28,000. Where this money went and how it was spent we have at present no concrete proof, but in the light of recent events, one can safely surmise the use to which this large sum of money has been put. The damage to life and property was fortunately quite small, in spite of the violence and extent of the rioting, and this is mainly due to the fine co-ordination between the Police and the Military and the imposition of the curfew. Of the known casualties, 13 were killed, 49 warded, and 74 treated as out-patients. Sir, I take this opportunity to reiterate the thanks of this Government to the following: To the public for their fine co-operation and their forbearance of the hardship suffered by them by the imposition of a curfew which had been forced upon the Government in our fight against lawless and subversive elements. To the Federation of Malaya for their fine gesture and co-operation by coming to our immediate assistance with police reinforcements.This has given meaning and reality to the friendship which exists between the two territories. To the Fire Brigade and the Ambulance service for rendering invaluable service. To the City Council workers for the efficient and prompt manner in which they have cleared the mess left behind by the rioters. To the Military for their immediate response to our request for help when our police were clearly likely to be exhausted by the extent of the disorders. Military units were in position within a few hours and this prompt and invaluable assistance ensured the early restoration of order with the minimum damage to life and property. To our Police Force for their admirable restraint, high standard of discipline, courage in face of grave danger, and devotion to duty. Sir, the events of the past few days have been forced on the Government and the people of Singapore alike, by an irresponsible group who, after playing a long time with fire, have at last started the fire. The fact that they talk sweet words of democracy and peace and constitutional action and human rights does not mask their real purpose or the danger of their tactics. In taking action against this group, the Government is not attacking the rights of trade unionists or farmers or teachers or Chinese education. We are liberating them from a form of political exploitation which, like a parasite, grows on the healthy purpose of these groups, sucks the health from the stock on which they cling and eventually kills it. We are engaged in Operation Liberation from an actual threat and a further possibility of tyranny on this island. I call on all workers to co-operate with the Government in our Operation Liberation. They should guard themselves against so-called trade union leaders who are out to exploit them for their own selfish ends. I call on all employers to co-operate with the Government in our Operation Liberation. Trade unionism is here to stay and any attempt to smother it, any attempt to exploit workers, is to give fertile ground for subversive elements to thrive. I call on all the people of Singapore to co-operate with the Government in our Operation Liberation so that we can together build a happier and a more prosperous Singapore for our children and our children's children.

And now, Sir, I want to tell hon. Members that the question of re-opening talks with the Colonial Office has not been set aside. Two months ago I had already been in touch with the Colonial Office informing them that I would be visiting London in the middle of December to fix an agenda for the talks to take place in February next year. I have only a few days ago been in further communication with the Colonial Office with a view to expediting these talks. The present indication is that the Secretary of State has a full programme right up to late February. He has, however, indicated that he would be pleased to see me in December, as previously asked for. I am therefore not yet in a position to name a definite date for the resumption of talks, but this Government has decided that if the talks are successful the new constitution should come into being in August next year, with fresh elections. The new constitution should come into being in August next year with fresh elections. This is in reply to the accusation of our opponents that this Government is anxious to remain in office. This Government, is not anxious to remain in office. This Government, while in office, intends to bring peace and security to Singapore and nothing is going to deter it. We will face the electorate when the time comes and it is for them to pass judgment on our present action. I have already stated in this Assembly that if fresh talks should fail, the purpose for which this Government accepted office would have come to an end, and there might be elections earlier than August, 1957.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand the Chief Minister to say that it is the firm intention of the Government to seek full and fresh elections, if the constitutional talks are successful, not later than August next, irrespective of the date of the talks?

Sir, the hon. Member understands aright.

10.28 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister has already explained the measures the Government has been forced to take to meet the growing threat of Communism in the Colony and to put down the riots which followed these measures. For me, and I am sure for most Members of the House, the most disturbing feature has been the prominent part played in all these disorders by students from the Chinese Middle Schools. Let me deal briefly with the events which followed the dissolution of the Middle Schools' Students' Union in which the schools were directly concerned. Soon after the Union had been dissolved, and despite my warnings that the continued activities of the Union were illegal, officials of the Union under various pretexts continued to hold meetings both in and out of schools hours. They ignored the orders of principals and teachers, many of whom admitted that discipline had broken down completely. On 10th October I therefore called a meeting of supervisors and principals and told them that it was my duty to see that the boys and girls in their schools were able to work in peace and quiet and that I did not see how they could do so as long as there remained in the schools teachers and pupils who were systematically encouraging others to flout authority. I therefore asked them to dismiss two teachers and some 140 named pupils. At the same time I issued an order forbidding any assembly of pupils not specifically authorised by the principals and requiring them to expel any pupils who disobeyed this order. I tried to impress upon them that they could not hope to maintain discipline unless they and their teachers dealt firmly with acts of insubordination. But, I said, punitive action alone was not enough. There were certain factors which contributed to indiscipline. Some of the schools were far too large to be manageable; there were children in their early teens in the same classes as adults in their middle twenties; and too many pupils whose standards of attainment were below normal. So long as these conditions were allowed to continue, it would be difficult for any staff to maintain discipline, and I therefore asked the principals to supply me with certain information which would help the Department to plan the necessary reforms. The school authorities accepted as necessary my demands for disciplinary action and my request for information. But not so the pupils. On the same evening, large numbers took possession of the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School. Supplies of food moved in and preparations were made for another stay-in strike. Now, this kind of action, as the students well knew, put Government in an embarrassing position. Unless it was prepared to use force to expel the students, Singapore was denied the use of school premises which provided places for nearly 8,000 children. The numbers camping in the two schools were not known, but it was clear that several thousands who wished to continue their studies were being denied the opportunity to do so. This time, with the co-operation of two management committees, we were able to give them that opportunity. On 11th October I sent for the supervisors and principals of the two schools and told them that there was only one alternative to their being called on to show cause why their schools should not be declared unlawful. The alternative was that they should temporarily close their schools and second their teachers to the Government which would then be able to accommodate in Government school premises those pupils who wanted to get on with their lessons undisturbed. This they agreed to do. On 13th October nearly all the teachers reported for duty and on the next day, the registration of pupils for admission to the temporary Government schools began. It had been feared that there would be widespread intimidation and a reluctance to register at the start, but the early response was excellent and almost 1,000 pupils had registered in the first three days. Two schools were opened on 16th October, one for Chinese High School pupils at Kallang West, the other for Chung Cheng High School pupils at Fowlie Road. Both these are new Government primary schools which were made available when pupils in their morning sessions were transferred to the afternoon sessions in nearby schools. Many of these children and their parents were put to a great deal of inconvenience, but I had heard not a word of complaint. I am grateful to them for their excellent cooperation. The two schools were staffed by teachers from the Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High School, under Headmasters also from these schools. They followed exactly the same syllabuses, used the same text-books as before, and were run in every respect as Chinese middle schools. Yet we have heard the same old lies, endlessly repeated, that the Government is destroying Chinese education, and often by people in responsible positions who ought to have known better. Is it the Government or its opponents who occupied the schools and by doing so effectively closed them to other pupils? Is it the Government which is intimidating pupils from attending either their own schools or the temporary Government schools? Is it the Government which has burnt down its own schools? What sublime hypocrisy to accuse the Government of attacking Chinese education or any other education for that matter, except a Communist education. And there, of course, is the answer. For these people the words "Chinese" and "Communist" are synonymous. The Government, on the contrary, believes that there can be a Chinese education which is not Communist in any sense of the word, but Malayan in its loyalty. But let me return to our temporary schools. After the first few days of registration, the numbers began to fall, and it was clear that the main cause of this was the campaign of lies and intimidation which the defunct Students' Union and its allies were waging against registration. Yet what was asked of those registering? Nothing more than that the pupil should report to the Registration Centre with his parent or guardian who would be prepared to sign a bond guaranteeing future good behaviour and the observance of school regulations. It involved no penalty other than the expulsion of the pupil for a serious breach of school rules. A similar bond is required of pupils at the Catholic High School and it is difficult to see how the Government could be expected to ask for less in the present circumstances. Notwithstanding the campaign of intimidation, the number registering continued to grow, but the interference with pupils from other middle schools became more and more flagrant. Large parties left the camp schools to indulge in a form of moral thuggery which is more dangerous in its way than physical violence, and it became clear that further action by the Government was necessary. On 24th October the Government issued a warning to parents to remove their sons and daughters from the schools before 8 p.m. on the following day, after which the schools would be cleared. Some parents heeded the warning, but when they arrived at the schools they found locked gates and barricades of desks. These obstructions were broken down by the police. Yet intimidation of the waverers amongst the students by their ringleaders and the 'sabotage' efforts of members of the so-called Parents Association made it difficult for parents to gain access to their children, and few succeeded in taking them away. Some indeed, misled by the lying propaganda which had been fed to them, even encouraged their children in their defiance. Members of the Management Committees, students from the University and others anxious to see the schools open again appealed to the students to leave, but without success, so that it became more and more clear that the students would have to be evicted by force. The actual eviction took place soon after dawn on 26th October after warnings had been ignored. Tear gas was used and the buildings were cleared within half an hour without any serious casualty. Since then the premises have been occupied by the police, though the Government has discussed with the Committees of Management the possibilities of reopening them at an early date. To this end, the Chief Minister and I, accompanied by some members of the Management Committees, visited both the schools on Thursday last. The intention of our visit was to find out how, soon we could reopen the schools - in fact, I wanted to open them today - but seeing that the schools were in a shambles, the Management Committees agreed that it was impossible to do so. However, at my suggestion, the Management Committees agreed to clean up their premises immediately. I shall not dwell upon the part which many students played in the riots which followed the eviction. That is made clear by the large numbers of them who were amongst those arrested for rioting. I prefer to tell you of the constructive steps I have taken to get the students into school again. As soon as the curfew was lifted, I opened three Registration Centres. This time a limit of four days was set for the time in which registration would take place. The main reason for this was that it would be possible the more quickly to reorganise the schools and get them running again if it was known how many pupils had to be accommodated and in what classes. The response was very slow at first, partly because to launch an intensive publicity campaign would have meant more delay, partly because many did not know where the centres were. But the daily enrolments increased rapidly. There were 521 pupils who registered on Saturday last. The total number now registered is slightly over 2,500. This is a bare third of the numbers previously enrolled in the two schools. Why have not more registered? All that was required was a guarantee of good behaviour. No one was refused admission unless he had been actively engaged in subversion or rioting, and even then a second chance might be given to any young pupil who had clearly been misled. The reorganisation will involve the separation of older from younger children, and as far as may be practicable, the breakdown of over-large schools into smaller and more manageable units. All these measures are designed to lessen the chances of similar disorders in the future. What is not being done is to anglicise the schools. They are now, and will be after the reorganisation, Chinese middle schools, but, I hope, Singapore Chinese middle schools. Why then have not more registered? There are three main reasons. First, the widespread intimidation. There has, so far as I know, been no physical violence, but many instances have been reported to me of threats and "persuasion". And even when they have not been directly threatened, many of the more timid parents and pupils have decided that it would be more prudent to stay away until conditions were quite normal again. Secondly, there has been a widespread whispering campaign which has maliciously distorted the facts of the registration. Parents have been told that registration meant the end of Chinese education in Singapore, that no over-aged pupils or pupils not born in Singapore would be admitted, and that registration was a cloak for Government's plans to arrest students. It was even whispered that pupils who registered would be put into prison. All these charges were deliberate and malicious lies, but as other countries have found, it is much harder to restore confidence and trust than it is to sow seeds of doubt and suspicion. Thirdly, thousands of students, often under the influence of mass emotion, have taken an oath to fight to the end against registration. Many now regret this oath but feel bound by it. Others are afraid to break it because they have been threatened with violence. I know of an instance where a child was threatened with death should he attend the Government temporary school. Here let me pause for a little while and ask hon. Members of the House and the public of Singapore if it is their wish that our schools should turn out would-be rioters, intimidators and murderers? That the student leaders, backed by an outside force, would not hesitate to resort to violence is clear from an editorial entitled "We are waiting for it" issued on 25th October and found on a blackboard at the Chung Cheng High School. It reads "It is now not the time for us to be afraid of our being dispersed by force. Rather, it is now high time for the colonialists to shiver with fright at the bare idea of the adventure they are going to take. Ever since the 'May 13th' incident, the people of Singapore, particularly the students and workers, have been much accustomed to violence or bloodshed; moreover, they have the foresight for the truth that all violence or cruel act is sure to end in defeat. Therefore, whatever force or threat can never shake their determination to struggle. On the contrary, they will have more confidence and courage to send the militants into the grave. We dare say affirmatively that should the authorities have the audacity to disperse the camping students by force, Lim Yew Hock and Chew Swee Kee would immediately be thrown out of their posts. It is crystal clear to us that our subjective strength for struggle has got extensively deep into and is now lurking among people of every walk of life, particularly among the workers and farmers. This potential force is sure to explode once there is a chance for it to do so. If the students' camping should develop into a universal demand for democracy, freedom and human right protection, it would be high time for people of every walk of life to launch an all-out mobilisation for the common demand. And the situation will then be more favour able to us. For we will then get more closely united with them and form a people's anticolonial united front to bring about re-elections to smash or rout the entire Labour Front. By then, the blow will not only be confined to Lim Yew Hock and Chew Swee Kee. We doubt that Chew Swee Kee has the audacity to carry out his threat. Anyway, if he dares to take the risk to disperse us with force, we are prepared to face the violence. The present conflict is no more that of an egg against the rock but that of steel versus the rock." That is the kind of language we have among the pupils. Once again, let me put a very blunt question to the parents of the children. Is it their desire that their children be taught lawlessness and violence before they can distinguish right from wrong? Or is it their sincere wish - and the duty of any government - to see that their children get the education they want, so that they can take their rightful place in society after their school days? It is probable, too, that many parents: have so lost control of their children that they refuse to sign a bond. This disruption of family life is one of the things we have to fear from the spread of Communist teaching in our schools. Let me read to you a letter taken from one of those recently detained under the Public Security Ordinance : It reads: "The general rule between father and son, mother and daughter is not love but revolution, emancipation and the new replacing the old. I am telling you this: the first duty of grown-up men and women is to declare the "Independence Manifesto". A man cannot be called a man if he adheres to the authority of his father. A woman who obeys the order of her mother is unfit to bear and nurture the citizens of a free nation." That is the kind of education we had a month ago. There you see the nature of the evil with which we have to contend. When this kind of doctrine is preached, is it any wonder that parents and teachers find it difficult to maintain discipline, and that young men and women - even boys and girls - are to be found rioting when they should be studying? These are dangers of which other countries than Singapore are only too well aware. The Federation Chief Minister has shown his support for our action in a most forthright speech recently. The Government of Burma has taken action against student unions there to try to forestall similar disturbances in that country. The pattern is not new and the world is learning slowly but surely to recognise the danger in time. Even in China today no student unions are allowed to function without the guidance of the principals. Let me quote from the Jen Min Jit Pao (official organ of the Chinese People's Republic) and the Chinese Ministry of Education directives on this matter: "The Students' Association is not formed freely by the students themselves. The idea behind the formation of the Association can perhaps best be obtained from the 'Regulations governing the formation of Students' Association in Secondary Schools' promulgated by the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education on December 30, 1955. The prominent points of the regulations are as follows: Under the guidance of the Principal, the Students' Association assists the Youth League and Young Pioneers to respond to Chairman Mao's call ... , and prepare the students for service in the construction and protection of our Socialist mother country ... A plenary session of the Association may be held only with the approval of the Principal and the participation of the Principal and the Committee members of the Youth League ... ". All the factors I have mentioned - intimidation, lying propaganda, the oath and the disruption of family ties - all these have affected the registration. These difficulties were all foreseen. It was known that the fight would be long and difficult. The significant thing is not that only 2,500 children have registered, but that as many as that have done so. It means that 2,500 children are not only keen to get on with their studies and are prepared in future to obey school regulations, but also that they have had the courage to stand up to intimidation. Over 1,500 are already in school; the rest will be found places, I hope, by tomorrow. The Committees of Management are already preparing their schools for work to begin there again, but the conditions left behind by the camping students were chaotic and some slight delay is, as I pointed out earlier, inevitable. As soon as they are ready, registration will be re-opened at the schools themselves for a few days only, but under exactly the same conditions as before. This then is the success of the registration scheme - that it has provided places for 2,500 children in Chinese middle schools - I repeat, in Chinese middle schools - who otherwise would have had no school to go to. It has shown beyond any doubt that it is not the Government which is killing Chinese education but a mob of reckless students and the evil forces behind them. It has not been an easy task with a very limited staff to organise the registration, staffing the classes and the timetables of the new schools. Behind this operation, so much less striking than the dispersal of rioters, there is a story of long and involved planning and endless hours of overtime work on the part of officers in my Ministry and of teachers from the two Chinese schools. We are apt to overlook their work in the greater excitement. I am glad to acknowledge the debt I owe to them. I have told you something of the Government's plans to restore order to the Chinese middle schools and something too of the ruthless forces which still remain to be overcome. The Government is fighting these and will continue to fight them with all the means at its disposal. Yet in the last resort the solution lies with the Chinese people themselves. Is their loyalty to Singapore or to elsewhere? Have they the courage to stand up to intimidation? There are many who have clearly shown that their loyalty is not to this country. The Government has acted and will continue to act against them. There are others who have sat on the fence, and they include some in positions of great influence who owe everything to this country. They are, no doubt, more subject to intimidation than others; by virtue of their position, they should equally show the more courage in resisting it. Let me pay a tribute to those who have come out into the open in support of the Government's action. I refer particularly to those students who first came forward to register and formed the first classes in the temporary schools; to those students in other schools who resisted intimidation and continued to attend school; to the parents who braved the mobs of students and took their children home. These are the people we should be proud of. I yield to none in my admiration of the work done by the Police and Services in quelling the riots. But the final battle will be won by a display of moral courage. We must first tell the people the truth and then they themselves must find in their hearts the moral courage to face it. The Chief Minister has led the way. It is for the people of Singapore to follow that lead.

"to create an authority for the co-ordination of welfare facilities for seafarers and to administer the Singapore Mercantile Marine Fund", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 20th November, 1956, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that a Bill, intituled "An Ordinance for making provision for estimated financial requirements for expenditure out of the revenues and other funds of the Colony for the year 1957", be now read the First time. Bill read the First time.

Are there sufficient copies of the Estimates?

Yes, Sir,I have already given them to the Clerk.

Thank you. Second Reading, what day?

On the 7th of November, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to present a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to dispense with the ordinary elections to the City Council in December, 1956, and to provide for the extension of the tenure of office of City Councillors then required to retire". I should like to inform the House that, although a Certificate of Urgency was requested from His Excellency the Governor, it is not proposed to take this Bill through all its stages today, as there are further sittings of the Assembly this month which will give Members more time and opportunity to consider it. Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

20th November, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.55 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I do not think there is anything controversial in this Bill, Sir.It is just to carry out the policy of Government to replace Ministers serving on statutory boards by permanent officials for the pur pose of continuity. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committe stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

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

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment. Third Reading

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "Thatt the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.59 a.m.

Sir, I have the consent of His Excellency the Governor under Standing Order 33 (1) (a) to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The principles of a Bill to repeal and re-enact the law relating to Muslims and, in particular, to regulate the registration of marriages and divorces and to establish a Shariah Court have already been accepted by this House at the last session when a Bill, in almost identical terms, passed its Second Reading in February and was referred to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, that Select Committee was not able to complete its work and report the Bill before the end of the session, and so that Bill has lapsed. With one important exception, this present Bill reproduces the clauses of the previous Bill. A number of comparatively minor amendments of draft ing or on points of details have been made and they are the result of the detailed consideration that was given to the previous Bill. The important exception is the omission from this Bill of the provision which was made in clause 47 of the previous Bill and that provision was that, in the case of any Muslim dying testate after the coming into force of the Bill, the law of Islam should apply. That clause, Sir, raised an important question of principle, namely, whether it is right to enforce, by law, the observance of the teachings of a particular religion by the individual members of that religion. That clause would impose a major restriction on the freedom of the individual, in this case, any Muslim, to dispose of his property by will in any way he pleases; and this would be a radical departure from the previously accepted principle that in this community of many religious beliefs and customs, while the State can quite properly provide, by law, facilities for the members of a particular religion to practise their religion, the State should not, in principle, compel anyone to do so but should leave it to the free conscience of the individual to observe his religious doctrine or not. Indeed, clause 47 of the previous Bill was challenged in this House in the debate on the Second Reading when, I think it was, the Member for Telok Ayer drew attention to the point that, while in his view it was perfectly proper in the case of a Muslim dying intestate without a will that his property should be distributed according to Muslim law, it was not right, in his view, that where a Muslim made a will he should not be free to dispose of his property as he pleased, whether or not it was in accordance with the law of Islam. This question of whether or not to include this clause has caused great controversy. I think it is well known that it was difficulty over the principle of this clause which delayed the work of the previous Select Committee and prevented it from reporting the Bill before the end of the session. As I have said, Sir, that clause has been omitted from the present Bill which is now before the Assembly, and I must accept responsibility for omitting that clause, and the reason was my keen desire to enact, without further delay, the non-controversial clauses of this Bill which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the Muslim community here. I was very anxious, Sir, to get established without further delay the procedure for registration of marriages and divorces and the Shariah Court, matters on which we are all agreed and which are so badly needed, and I did not wish to delay getting these benefits to the Muslim community through controversy over this one particular clause and the two or three provisions related to it. I hoped that perhaps these additional provisions could be made, if it was so wished, by one of my colleagues introducing an amending Bill which could be done after the Bill as now drafted has been enacted. But since the publication of this Bill, it has become evident that the vast majority of Muslim opinion is very strongly in favour of including a clause on the lines of the old clause 47. I have received very strong representations from the Muslim Advisory Board and I am advised that the whole of U.M.N.O. is solidly behind including a clause on those lines, and the views of the Muslim Advisory Board have been supported, to me, by the Inter-religious Organisation of Singapore and Johore. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the vast majority of Muslims would prefer that a clause on those lines should be included in the Bill even at the cost of delaying somewhat its final enactment. The Government has therefore decided to meet the wishes of the Muslim community so widely and so strongly expressed, and at the Committee stage I shall introduce a new clause on the lines of the old clause 47. In fairness, Sir, I should say that there has, of course, been opposition to including this clause, and this opposition is supported by a number of leading Muslims. So that hon. Members may appreciate the issue, I will, if I may, state very briefly the main points which have been made against including a clause on the lines of the old clause 47.

Order, Mr Chief Secretary. There is a notice, item 4 in the Order Paper, of a motion standing in your name, "That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill to consider amendments to the Bill to provide that no Muslim shall dispose of his property by will except in accordance with Muslim law." Do I take it then, Mr Chief Secretary, from what you are saying, that it is not your intention to move that motion?

Sir, I am moving that motion.

In that case, perhaps the Chief Secretary will not anticipate an item on the Order Paper - his comments could well come under item 4 in the Order Paper?

As you wish, Sir.I will therefore come back to the arguments for and against the including of clause 47 al a later stage when I move the motion tc which you have just referred, Sir. Perhaps at this stage I need say no more, then, than to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I do intend to move this Bill to a Select Committee, and in doing that, I shall move two further motions - one asking that the minutes of, the evidence given before the previous Select Committee which covered these important points should be referred to that Select Committee; and the second motion will be a motion asking that the Select Committee should specifically consider introducing an amendment on these lines, and in moving that last amendment, I will endeavour to initiate a debate now on that principle so that hon. Members may have a chance of understanding the issues and those who so wish of expressing their views. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Sir, I move, That the Muslims Bill be referred to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Muslims Bill be referred to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, have I your permission to speak?

Yes.

Can anyone speak on the principles of the Bill now?

Order. When the Question "That the Bill be now read a Second time" was proposed, that was the opportunity given to every Member to speak on the principles of the Bill.

So I have no chance to speak now?

No, I am sorry.

So what I would suggest is that I will speak on item 4 in the Order Paper.

The hon. Member will have an opportunity to do so later.

11.12 a.m.

Sir, I move, That the minutes of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill in the previous session of the Assembly be referred to the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill. As I have said just now, Sir, it would be helpful to the Select Committee if, in considering the present Bill, they can have the benefit of the evidence which was taken by the previous Select Committee and which did cover most of the controversial points in the Bill.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just wondering whether this motion is, in fact, adequate to meet the purpose for which it is sought. The motion merely suggests that the minutes be referred to the Select Committee, but it does not, in fact, empower the Select Committee to take the minutes into consideration for the purposes of coming to decisions on the matters before it, and I was wondering, Sir, whether this motion is, in fact, adequate. I do support the motion but I would like the Select Committee to be given full powers for the purpose for which the motion is intended. Mr Goode rose -

Mr Chief Secretary, in reply?

Sir,I am quite happy with the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the minutes of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill in the previous session of the Assembly be referred to the Scilect Committee on the Muslims Bill.

11.15 a.m.

Sir, I move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill to consider amendments to the Bill to provide that no Muslim shall dispose of his property by will except in accordance with Muslim law. Sir, the purpose of this motion is to instruct the Select Committee to give this particular amendment their specific attention. The wording of the motion will not, I am advised, in any way restrict the Select Committee in considering other clauses of the Bill, but it will have the effect of inviting them particularly to consider including in the Bill an amendment to provide, as in the case of clause 47 of the old Bill, that the law of Islam shall apply to Muslims who die testate. As I have already stated, it is my intention, on behalf of the Government in that Select Committee, to introduce an amendment designed for that purpose. I think, Sir, that it will be useful, both for the Select Committee and in order that this matter shall be fully understood and the issues stated, that we should on this motion consider the principle behind the new clause which I propose to move in the Select Committee. I have already stated, in speaking on the Second Reading, that there seems to us on this side of the House to be no question at all that the inclusion of such a clause is most widely and earnestly desired by the vast majority of Muslims in Singapore. It does, however, raise difficulties and there are two difficulties to which I should like to refer briefly. The first is the issue of basic principle. Is it right in Singapore to compel persons, who profess a particular religion, to comply with the precepts of that religion? We must bear in mind, Sir, that this is not a Muslim State and hitherto the law in Singapore has allowed the individual freedom of conscience to follow his religion or not as he pleases. For instance, it is not an offence in Singa pore, as it is in several of the Muslim Malay States of the Federation, for a Muslim to drink alcohol, or for a Muslim to enter licensed premises, or for a person to sell a Muslim coffee during the hours of puasa. If we admit in this Bill the principle of compelling a Muslim to follow the law of Islam in wills, are we then prepared to extend that principle and to compel them to follow other precepts of the law of Islam? And if we admit the principle for Muslims, are we then to extend it for Hindus, Christians and other religious communities which we have here in Singapore? That is the first important question on which Members of this House, and I hope members of the public, should make up their minds. The question of principle - is it right that we should compel a person to observe the tenets of his religion? The second objection which has been put forward is a more practical one which has been put forward indeed by some Muslims who are against this clause; and that is, they argue that a clause on these lines, if enacted, will cause hardship to Muslims, because, quite apart from denying to the individual Muslim the freedom to dispose of his property by will as he pleases, the effect of this clause will be to break up and fragment Muslim estates; so that, for example, if a Muslim who has built up a flourishing business dies, the business will have to be wound up and sold in order that the proceeds may be realised and distributed amongst his heirs in accordance with the Muslim law of inheritance. This, it is argued, is a grave handicap to the building up of Muslim and particularly Malay business and commercial interests, because the energies and fruits of one man's efforts cannot be carried on and sustained and increased by his heir or some person whom he thinks most competent to keep that family business going. A further practical objection which has been raised is that the effect of applying the law of Islam to wills will be to throw into doubt a large number of existing wills and may therefore lead to much litigation and again hardship and expense to the beneficiaries of an estate. But, on the other hand, Sir, as I have said, there seems to be no doubt at all that the vast majority of the Muslims - and they, after all, are the persons most closely affected - do, nevertheless, want a clause on these lines included, and it is in deference to that strongly and widely expressed opinion that the Government will introduce a new clause on these lines at the Committee stage. I hope, Sir, that Members of this House will take the opportunity provided by this motion to put forward their views for and against legislation on the lines which I have referred to. That will, of course, be useful for the Select Committee, and it will be valuable so that public opinion may be advised of the intention of the Government. One last point, Sir, and it is this: if any Member of the Assembly so wishes, he will have a further opportunity of debating this particular clause at the Report stage, assuming that we report the Bill back including a clause on the lines of the old clause 47. He can do so by moving a motion to recommit that particular clause. But I hope, Sir, that this morning we shall get expressions of views from Members on both sides of the House. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion but reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed. 11.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I missed the opportunity of speaking on the principles of the Muslims Bill. Now I take the opportunity to speak on this motion which is item No. 4 on the Order Paper. Although I am an Indian though born in the Muslim faith, I have never taken any public interest in this issue as I never argue about religion. I leave this to the religious experts. Sir, representations were made to me regarding the clause to which the Hon. the Chief Secretary has referred and other clauses in the old Bill and I had to speak on a previous occasion and also in the previous Select Committee on the Muslims Bill. Singapore is not a secular State like India. The State religion is Christianity. Any Muslim can, if he wants, make a will during his lifetime. If he does not as per Muslim code, he is committing an offence against his God and his religion. Therefore, why should the estate of a Muslim be distributed if he dies after making a will, according to the Muslim law? This is one side of the case. But in the Bill itself there is more than one controversial point. Here is a Bill asking Muslims to follow the tenets of Islam. At the same time, there is a clause in the Bill which goes against Koranic rules. Since 1,400 years, no man, however big, has been able to change the Koran. I do not know who is responsible for this, Sir, but the proviso in clause 41 of the Bill is definitely against the Muslim religion. For those who stand for the Muslim religion and want Muslims to act according to Muslim religious laws, this proviso, which is against the tenets of Islam, should not be there. This was the main bone of contention in the previous Select Committee. Sir, I had an interview with the Chairman of the Muslim Advisory Board and I have also received a copy of a letter addressed by him to the Chief Secretary dated 18th October, 1956, in which the Chairman of the Muslim Advisory Board suggests certain amendments, one of which is that the proviso in clause 41 of the old Bill (1 think it is the same proviso in the new Bill) be removed. If that is done, then the whole Bill is based on the laws of Islam and I wonder whether any Muslim will have any objection then. I want to be very brief as the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee and it can be more fully discussed there. I have no particular objection to clause 47. The fact is that representations on this clause have been made to me, and as an elected Member, it is my duty to bring these representations before the House and eventually before the Select Committee. Some one has spread the rumour that I am against this clause personally. That is incorrect. There are always mischief-makers. Sir, everyone will now be very happy that a Shariah Court will be established immediately -

Order.

Sir, I was speaking on the same topic -

Order. If the hon. Member is developing an argument which is relevant to item 4, that is all right, but I cannot see how a Shariah Court has any relevance to item 4.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will permit me, I wish to explain this. All this is connected with the Muslim religion and this clause is on the Muslim religion. If you will allow me to speak, I will continue.

The hon. Member can continue, but I will pull him up again if he is out of order.

Sir, nobody will be more happy than I to have the Bill passed and I hope the Select Committee will get down to its work immediately so that there will be no delay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information. The Member for Telok Ayer made a statement to the effect that the State religion of Singapore is Christianity. May I know the source of his information, please?

Sir, I may or may not be correct, but I think the Government can say it now. May I have an answer, Sir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion.

Sir, may I have an answer?

Order. The hon. Member cannot compel an answer. 11.31 a.m.

Sir, speaking as one of the leaders of the Malay community and of U.M.N.O. in Singapore, I can say without any hesitation at all that this motion has the overwhelming support of the Malays in this island. In moving the motion, the Hon. the Chief Secretary has enumerated some pertinent points why this controversial clause should be omitted. One of the questions posed was, "If we admit the principle of compelling Muslims to follow the law of Islam in wills, are we next to compel them to observe puasa?" On the face of it, Mr Speaker, there is some substance in what he says, but then there is this difference. In the case of the former, non-compliance with Islamic laws affects a number of people, whereas non-observance of the puasa is a matter between, the person himself and God. I do not say, Sir, as a Muslim, that it is a good thing not to observe puasa, but it is definitely a lesser evil. It has also been pointed out that Singapore is a colony and not a Muslim State and hence Singapore should not have Muslim laws on its statute book. The same argument, Sir, can also be applied to the Christian religion and yet we have in our laws today provisions which compel Christians to be monogamous. I wonder, Sir, whether this is a case of one man's food being another man's poison ! 11.33 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are one or two observations which I consider it my duty to make as Attorney-General on the motion which is now before this Assembly. As I understand it, Sir, what in effect the Select Committee is being asked or indeed instructed to do is to consider an amendment to the existing law which will limit the freedom which every Muslim at present enjoys under the law in common with every other person, no matter to what community he belongs, to dispose of his property by will in any way that he pleases. I hope, Sir, in making these few observations, to avoid anything controversial, and I also hope that what I do say will be of some assistance to Members of this Assembly and indeed to the Select Committee, if it should be appointed. In the first place, Sir, I think it is important that Members of the Assembly should understand what the present law is. This has been referred to briefly by one of the Members who has already spoken, and I hope the House will be patient with me if I refer again to it. Generally, Sir, the law at present emphasises and underlines the freedom of all Muslims to dispose of their property by will as they please. So it is, Sir, that the existing law - the Muslims Ordinance - provides that: "Nothing in this Ordinance shall be held to prevent any Muslim directing by his will that his estate shall be administered according to the law of Islam." That, I think, Sir, has been the law here in Singapore since 1880 and that provision is reproduced in clause 40 (3) of the Bill which is now before the Assembly. There is, Sir, another provision in the Muslims Ordinance which takes account of the law of Islam and this provision, I am referring to section 27 of the Muslims Ordinance which again is reproduced in clause 41 of the Bill which we are now considering, provides, Sir, that in the case of any Muslim dying intestate, the estate and effects shall be administered according to the law of Islam. There has been some reference made to the proviso which is part of that clause, but I am not concerned with that at this moment. So the present position, Sir, is that, first, all Muslims are free to make a will and that, secondly, if a Muslim does make a will, he is free to -direct that his property shall be administered according to the law of Islam. That, as I have said, Sir, has been the law in Singapore - I think I am right in saying - since 1880. Thirdly, Sir, the law provides that if he does not leave a will, that is, if he dies intestate, his estate must be administered according to the law of Islam. As I have said, Sir, the law which I have briefly stated has been in force in Singapore for many years, and I am sure that Members will have appreciated that any change in the law on the lines which the motion before the House now contemplates will alter the existing rights of individuals in relation to their property, and will moreover place under a legal disability in relation to their property members of that particular community, a legal disability which it is not intended to impose on individual members of other communities. I would like now, Sir, if I may, to refer to one or two points of detail which might perhaps provoke some comments from Members of the Assembly and I do so because I feel - I hope I am right - that the Select Committee may be assisted by what may be said as a result of some of the points which I am now going to mention. As I see it, Sir, any Select Committee which may be appointed in accordance with the terms of this motion will have to consider very carefully the scope of the proposed new clauses. It seems to me, Sir, that the matters to be considered by the Select Committee should include the question of what is to be done with wills which have already been made when the new legislation is to come into force. I think, too, that the Committee, I suggest, would wish to consider whether only Muslims domiciled in the colony should be affected by this legislation. I assume, Sir, that it will be accepted that this must be the case. I suggest, too, Sir, that the Committee will perhaps wish to restrict the terms of the proposed legislation, if there is to be any, to property situated in Singapore, and will further wish to consider whether wills within the scope of the intended legislation are to be invalidated to the extent only that they are inconsistent with the law of Islam. Sir, other questions will no doubt occur to the Committee - I am sure they will - and indeed they may be in the minds of Members this morning. These particular questions to which I have referred do appear to me to be questions of importance and, as I say, if what I have said will be helpful to the Select Committee, I shall be satisfied that what I have said has not been out of place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have always thought that the time has come for provisions to be made to limit the powers of disposing of one's property by will at one's complete discretion, and it has been my view for some time that the Government should amend the Wills Ordinance in order to protect the dependants of a deceased person who may not be inclined to think of them and may wish to dispose of his property without consideration for the welfare of his widow and his children. The Muslim law, as I understand it, does, in fact, insist that the widow and children of a deceased are protected in the disposal of his property. It may well be, Sir, that the Muslim law goes much further than I would be prepared to go in limiting the powers of a person to dispose of his property by will, but there is certainly a great deal of good sense in the protection it seeks to give to the family against an unreasonable head of the family. However, the question before us now, Sir, is not whether we should amend the law of disposal of property in order to protect the dependants, but we are asked to consider a very radical departure from the principle that has been accepted in this Assembly, that is, the principle that we must give the fullest facilities to all races for the observance of their religious customs and traditions. In this case, the Muslims have the fullest facilities for observing the law of Islam in respect of the disposal of property in accordance with the provisions of clause 40 (3) of the Bill: "Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be held to prevent any Muslim person directing by his or her will that his or her estate and effects shall be administered according to the law of Islam." They have the opportunity to do so, but what we are, in fact, asked to consider is whether they should be compelled to do so : those Muslims who do not wish to observe the law of Islam in respect of their property. Now, Sir, we are going from the principle of the fullest opportunity for observance of customs and traditions of religious beliefs to the principle of policing the enforcement of a religious belief. That is a very grave departure indeed, because, though I will freely admit that, in so far as I am conscious of the laws of the various religious customs, at the time they were made they were appropriate for the social and economic circumstances then prevailing - it does not follow that they are appropriate today; and once we accept the principle of policing any aspect of the laws of a particular religion, we are throwing the doors open for very grave repercussions, particularly in view of the plural society and the many religions which are domiciled in this territory. In these circumstances, Sir, before this House is asked to take a decision on so grave a matter, it is my hope that the Select Committee will also advise the House in its report of provisions of a similar character, if any, and of the conditions prevailing in connection with the disposal of property by Muslims in the following territories : the Federation and each of the States of the Federation, Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt. It is true that Pakistan is a theocratic State, Sir, but it would be interesting to know how they have dealt with this aspect of Muslim law in these Muslim territories and to what extent this particular law is, in fact, valid and useful. I trust, Sir, that we will not lose the lesson of this debate and that Government will give serious consideration to a law limiting the disposal of property by deceased persons in order to protect to some extent their dependants at the time of death. 11.47 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I most strongly welcome the motion moved by my friend and colleague the Hon. the Chief Secretary for directing, the Select Committee to consider the inclusion of the old clause 47. Certain arguments have been raised against the introduction of this clause. One of them is that it is a matter of basic principle - is it right to compel a person who professes a particular religion to comply with its precepts? Sir, organised society needs some sort of curbing, and it is recognised that the component members of an organised society have to tie themselves down with certain laws in order to conduct relations with each other. These laws, Sir, have been derived from various sources, but some of these sources are religion, customs and usage. In certain cases the customs and usage have been based on religious laws, and in other cases probably certain laws have been based on older customs that were prevailing in those tribes and people who received that religion. But it is certain, Sir, that the principle has already been accepted of forcing members of an organised society to follow certain rules in regard to their conduct with each other, and many of these rules that are called laws are derived from religious laws. Now, Sir, what is wrong with compelling persons who profess a particular religion to comply with its precepts? If they like it, if they are agreeable to it, I do not think there is anything wrong. Sir, take the principle of any legislation that comes up in any country, going before a House of the representatives of the people of that country. If the representatives agree to that legislation being put through, it means that, according to the functioning of democracy, they are carrying out the wishes of the people concerned; the people concerned being the people of the country. In this case the people concerned are Muslims. This legislation will apply to Muslims, and as far as I am aware, more than 99 per cent of the Muslims in Singapore are in favour of incorporating this clause in the Bill. Sir, if we follow the democratic principle of this House passing legislation for the whole of Singapore, because it applies to all the people of Singapore, then, on the same parallel, Sir, if Muslims want certain legislation which affects them only, I do not see any reason why any Member of this House should not agree to it. The criterion by which you judge your laws is whether they are acceptable in common sense. If a law is not acceptable in common sense, then you say it is bad and you refuse to pass it. But if there are good grounds behind the customs or the usage that call for the enactment of that law, then you say the principles behind the proposed legislation are good and therefore you pass it. But, Sir, what are the principles behind these provisions in the Muslim law which we want to incorporate into clause 47? They are to provide for the rightful heirs of a deceased person. Sir, the Muslim who makes a will has the right, according to Islamic law, to will away one-third of his property without consulting anybody. So he has the freedom of willing away one-third of his property and the restriction applies only to the remaining two-thirds, and the law of Islam says that this two-thirds should be applied for the benefit of his heirs who otherwise might be left unprovided for. It often happens that a person getting on in age is sometimes smitten with religion and leaves every thing to charity, or he may have a temporary quarrel with one of his sons and cut him off his will, or he may get into the clutches of a beautiful girl and forget about his wife and children -

That does not apply to Muslims only.

That is true. Sir, we have also accepted the principle of compelling Muslims to follow certain Islamic laws, because clause 41 of this Bill is actually a derivation of an amendment to the Muslims Ordinance in 1924, and compels the distribution of the property of an intestate Muslim according to the law of Islam; but that does not apply to other communities of the society in Singapore. If any person other than a Muslim dies intestate, his property is distributed according to the old English law; but here you are compelling a Muslim who dies intestate to have his property distributed according to the law of Islam. So you have accepted the principle of compelling Muslims to follow certain Muslim precepts. The question was raised as to how far we should go in compelling Muslims to observe their religion. For instance, puasa was cited. I would say, Sir, that as far as the people affected are concerned, if they want it, they can have it. This is according to purely democratic principles. The same answer will apply to the question - should we compel people of other religions to follow their religions? - and that is, if they want it, they should have it. And why not? In fact, we have incorporated religious laws into our laws in many respects. My friend and colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing mentioned just now that the Christian practice of a man being allowed to marry only one wife is enforceable in the Penal Code. If a Christian marries more than one wife, he is hauled up before a court under the Penal Code for a bigamous marriage. That principle has been accepted. You are forcing a Christian to confine himself to one wife at one time! The section in the Penal Code on bigamy does not read: "Nothing in this Ordinance (or whatever it is) contained shall be held to prevent any Christian from marrying more than one wife." It does not read that way, Sir, as pointed out by my friend the Member for Cairnhill, and Muslims are not forced to distribute their property, if they do not want to, according to the law of Islam. (Referring to clause 40 (3) of the Muslims Bill.) The practice in India, Sir, which is not a theocratic State, is this. The Muslims have been excluded from that part of the Indian Succession Act which deals with testamentary matters and disposal of property and succession and so on, so that there is no express legislation binding the Muslims not to follow their own religious laws. It is not the same position here in Singapore, because you have the operation of the Wills Ordinance so that if a Muslim makes a will at present which is not in accordance with the law of Islam, that will is good. But in India that position has been neutralised by the exclusion of Muslims from that portion of the Indian Succession Act which deals with disposition and so on. Case law in India has established many, many decades back that, as far as disposal of property is concerned, where wills are not in accordance with Islamic laws, the law of Islam shall prevail and there have been hundreds and thousands of cases, I believe, in India in which judgment to this effect has been given; and it is a recognised case law now in India that that portion of the will which is in excess of what is allowed according to the law of Islam is not recognised. Further, the Shariah Act of 1937 in India states that where the parties are Muslims, then the Muslim personal law shall be applicable in matters of succession and other major matters connected with Islamic law. So that there again is a positive direction to the courts that if a case comes up where a will is contested and the parties are Muslims, then the Muslim personal law shall apply. I shall quote, Sir, from Moolah's 10th Edition, Principles of Mohammedan Law, which is a recognised authority in India: "Limits of testamentary power A Mohammedan cannot by will dispose of' more than a third of the surplus of his, estate after payment of funeral expenses and' debts. Bequests in excess of the legal third cannot take effect unless there is consent thereto after the death of the testator." There, Sir, you have an answer to the point raised by my friend the Chief Secretary as to the breaking up of Muslim businesses and estates. That can very well be avoided. Even though the will is not in accordance with the law of Islam and if those aggrieved are getting less than what they should but if they consent to the extra portion given to others who should not have got it under Islamic law, then that bequest is valid. So if a person leaves his business to a son whom he considers is best fitted to run it, and though that son's share of his property is in excess of what he should have according to Islamic law, the other sons can, by consent after the death of the testator, agree to the business being carried on by that son. There are, of course, other ways of overcoming that difficulty. Limited companies can be formed during the lifetime of the testator, or the children could be taken into partnership, in which case when the testator dies, only that portion of the shares which is his is subject to distribution, and the rest is not. Then, of course, there is a proviso in the Islamic law that one-third of the property can be left by the testator to anybody he likes. He can make use of that proviso to leave one-third to any particular heir provided he obtains consent beforehand from the other heirs. Sir, we have now all the arguments answered point by point. The final point I wish to make, Sir, is that if a Muslim lady marries a Muslim man, she has an expectation of a certain share of his property on his death. She has that expectation because she married a Muslim according to Muslim marriage rites, and both of them are Muslims. Now if the law of Islam is not applied and the testator wills away his property as he likes, then what happens is that she may be entirely cut off from his will and then she will have lost the right of expectation to which she is entitled, because she has married a Muslim according to Muslim marriage rites. Sir, there is also an obligation on the part of the husband to leave the wife her rightful portion of his property according to Islamic law, and if he can get out of that at will because the law of the country does not force him to do this, then he is breaking his obligation to her. 12 noon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a matter on which I am very well informed but I should like to make one or two remarks because I personally intend to support the Muslim desire that they should obstruct their economic progress. I should like to explain why. I personally dislike very much the introduction of any element of theocracy into a State. I think it is a very dangerous thing. My objection is basically a Christian objection. I do not want to get into a lecture on theology, but there is a well- known saying, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's"; and that is taken by Christians to mean that the State has its proper functions and you leave those ordinary day-to-day matters to the State, whilst the things that are God's are matters between man and his God. If I acted on that principle as a good Christian, I am afraid I should vote against this clause 47 when it comes up before the Committee, but I do not think it would be appropriate to bring a Christian principle to bear on a Muslim matter in this way and I should use other methods of judgment on it. I cannot help feeling a great respect for the Muslim community which is aware, and must be aware, that this determination to follow strictly the law laid down for the distribution of camels and goats in the deserts of Arabia is not really quite appropriate in dealing with stocks and shares and installations of machinery and that kind of thing in a modern technological State. They must also be aware that it is a difficult law to apply and one which will be economically difficult for their community. I honour very highly their willingness to make sacrifices of wealth and expectations of profit in the interests of their faith, and I think that is a factor which should be given full weight. As a Socialist, I also see certain socialist advantages in it. I have pointed out that this Muslim religious law is inappropriate in a modern capitalist State. I do not think it will have any particular bad effect if we have a fully Socialist State because there will be nothing very significant to leave in your will, and therefore, as far as it goes, this Muslim law would fit in quite happily with a Socialist State which I hope some day we shall establish. For those reasons, Mr Speaker, I personally intend to give my voice for it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill to consider amendments to the Bill to provide that no Muslim shall dispose of his property by will except in accordance with Muslim law.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I shall take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.04 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $672,122 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. 59 of 1956. Sir, this paper deals with the applications for supplementary provision which are required to balance over-expenditure in certain votes in the 1955 accounts. Hon. Members will note that, in some cases, over- expenditure has occurred because bills have inadvertently been debited to the wrong votes. It is not really surprising. I do not know exactly how many bills, vouchers, etc. the financial clerks of Government have to deal with in the course of a year but it must run into hundreds of thousands. These minor inadvertencies are bound to occur. What is surprising is that they occur so infrequently. The Schedule contains eight items and only one of these items is for a sizeable amount. That item is No. 368 which refers to the Regional Fisheries Research Laboratory at Changi. There has been over-expenditure to the extent of $657,624, all of which is recoverable from Colonial Development and Welfare funds. Hon. Members may ask why over-expenditure of this amount occurred without an application for supplementary provision being made. I asked the same question when my attention was drawn to the matter early this year. Enquiries were made and it is clear that the omission was due to the fact that the eminent scientist in charge of the station was not completely familiar with the requirements of financial General Orders and to the fact that he spent much of the latter part of 1955 at sea with the research vessel the arrival of which he had anxiously waited for so long. The officer concerned has had his attention drawn to the requirements of financial General Orders in this connection. Over-expenditure in connection with the Cambodian Trade Fair was permitted as it was clear that the original Singapore provision would not be exceeded and that it seemed better to wait until exact requirements were known before seeking supplementary provision. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Committee of Supply, what day?

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

Schedule

The summary is at page 5. I have not received any notice of amendments. Head 24- The sum of $3 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29- The sum of $466 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 34- The sum of $1,264 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 35- The sum of $10,489 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46A- The sum of $59 for Head 46A ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 39- The sum of $6,392 for Head D 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 47- The sum of $661,561 for Head D 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $672,122 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $672,122 ordered to stand part of the motion.

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

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $672,122 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. 59 of 1956." put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $672,122 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. 59 of 1956.

2.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed with this motion which reads, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,457,350 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. 60 of 1956, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, in the motion, I ask for funds to implement a revision of the Cost of Living Allowance payable on pensions under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941. Under item No. 7 of the Order Paper, my friend and colleague, the Hon. the Chief Secretary is going to move a motion seeking legal sanction for the implementation of this revision of the Cost of Living Allowance. In these circumstances, Sir, as we appear to have the motions in the Order Paper rather out of order, perhaps you will allow my friend the Chief Secretary to take his motion first?

The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order, 9 (2) which reads: "The Assembly may, upon a motion which may be made without notice and shall take precedence of all other business, decide to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order." Can I have a motion?

Sir, I beg to move, That item 7 in the Order Paper be taken before item 6.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That item 7 in the Order Paper be taken before item 6.

2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the consent of His Excellency the Governor under Standing Order 33 (1) (a) to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That the rates of Cost of Living Allowance payable on current pensions and on such future pensions as may be awarded under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, shall, by resolution of this Assembly, be revised in accordance with the rates set out in the Schedule annexed hereto as from the 1st January, 1955, or, in the cases of pensions, awarded subsequent to the 1st January, 1955, from the date of the award of the pension. SCHEDULE Proposed revised rates of Cost of Living Allowance to be paid on pensions awarded under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941. Amount Proposed Amount Proposed of Cost of Living of Cost of Living Pension Allowance Pension Allowance $ c. $ c. $ c. $ c. Not exceeding 5 00 16 00 15 00 26 00 6 00 17 00 16 00 27 00 7 00 18 00 17 00 28 00 8 00 19 00 18 00 29 00 9 00 20 00 19 00 30 00 10 00 21 00 20 00 31 00 11 00 22 00 21 00 31 80 12 00 23 00 22 00 32 60 13 00 24 00 23 00 33 40 14 00 25 00 24 00 34 20 Column: 459 & 460 Schedule - continued Amount Proposed Amount Proposed of Cost of Living of Cost of Living Pension Allowance Pension Allowance $ c. $ c. $ c. $ c. 25 00 35 00 76 00 65 40 26 00 35 80 77 00 65 80 27 00 36 60 78 00 66 20 28 00 37 40 79 00 66 60 29 00 38 20 80 00 67 00 30 00 39 00 81 00 67 40 31 00 39 80 82 00 67 80 32 00 40 60 83 00 68 20 33 00 41 40 84 00 68 60 34 00 42 20 85 00 69 00 35 00 43 00 86 00 69 40 36 00 43 80 87 00 69 80 37 00 44 60 88 00 70 20 38 00 45 40 89 00 70 60 39 00 46 20 90 00 71 00 40 00 47 00 91 00 71 40 41 00 47 80 92 00 71 80 42 00 48 60 93 00 72 20 43 00 49 40 94 00 72 60 44 00 50 20 95 00 73 00 45 00 51 00 96 00 73 40 46 00 51 80 97 00 73 80 47 00 52 60 98 00 74 20 48 00 53 40 99 00 74 60 49 00 54 20 100 00 75 00 50 00 55 00 101 00 75 40 51 00 55 40 102 00 75 80 52 00 55 80 103 00 76 20 53 00 56 20 104 00 76 60 54 00 56 60 105 00 77 00 55 00 57 00 106 00 77 40 56 00 57 40 107 00 77 80 57 00 57 80 108 00 78 20 58 00 58 20 109 00 78 60 59 00 58 60 110 00 79 00 60 00 59 00 111 00 79 40 61 00 59 40 112 00 79 80 62 00 59 80 113 00 80 20 63 00 60 20 114 00 80 60 64 00 60 60 115 00 81 00 65 00 61 00 116 00 81 40 66 00 61 40 117 00 81 80 67 00 61 80 118 00 82 20 68 00 62 20 119 00 82 60 69 00 62 60 120 00 83 00 70 00 63 00 121 00 83 40 71 00 63 40 122 00 83 80 75 00 65 00 126 00 85 40 The purpose of this motion, Sir, is to seek the approval of this Assembly as is required under paragraph 9 (a) of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, to new and increased rates of Cost of Living Allowance to be paid on pensions paid under that Scheme. The new rates proposed are set out in detail in the Schedule to my motion on the Order Paper. The Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme was drawn up in 1941 to provide for granting pensions, allowances and gratuities to members of the Civil Defence organisations who suffered injury during the war or to the dependants of those of them who were killed or died and that Scheme was also applied to the armed volunteer forces. Now, the basis of calculating pensions and allowances under that Scheme was the normal monthly earnings of the person concerned at the time of injury or death. With the marked decrease in the value of money after the war, it was immediately necessary to supplement these very small pensions and allowances by a Cost of Living Allowance. So Cost of Living Allowances on these pensions were introduced and approved by a resolution of the Legislative Council in 1949, the rates coming into force with effect from the 1st of January, 1948. At that time, those rates of Cost of Living Allowances on these pensions were in line with the Cost of Living Allowances paid on the ordinary Government service pensions. Since then, however, there have been revised and increased Cost of Living Allowances and other allowances on the ordinary Government pensions and this motion that I now move seeks to get approval for new rates of Cost of Living Allowances for pensions under the Personal Injuries Scheme which would bring those allowances again into line with the allowances paid on ordinary Government service pensions in so far as that is possible. I say in so far as that is possible because there are certain fundamental differences between pensions under this Personal Injuries Scheme and ordinary Government pensions. For instance, one, whereas an ordinary Government service pension depends upon the length of service and the salary of the officer on his retirement and there is no change in the amount of pension according to whether the officer has dependants, pensions under the Personal Injuries Scheme are provided for wives and dependant children, so that, therefore, while Cost of Living Allowances on service pensions take account of family circumstances, Cost of Living Allowance on these pensions do not, because the pension itself takes that into account. The general effect of the increases now proposed is to increase the total amounts payable under the Scheme by about 30 per cent. The exact amount varies in each case according to the circumstances of the pension. There has been, I am afraid, a great deal of delay in working out these revised rates and in solving a number of administrative problems connected with them and, for this reason, we have felt it justified to bring the new rates into force with effect from the 1st of January. As my friend the Hon. the Financial Secretary had just stated, the money to pay what is required during the current year will be included in an application which he will make immediately following this motion. Sir, I beg to move,

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the rates of Cost of Living Allowance payable on current pensions and on such future pensions as may be awarded under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, shall, by resolution of this Assembly, be revised in accordance with the rates set out in the Schedule annexed hereto as from the 1st January, 1955, or, in the cases of pensions awarded subsequent to the 1st January, 1955, from the date of the award of the pension. Column: 465 & 466 SCHEDULE Proposed revised rates of Cost of Living Allowance to be paid on pensions awarded under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941. Amount Proposed Amount Proposed of Cost of Living of Cost of Living Pension Allowance Pension Allowance $ c. $ c. $ c. $ c. Not exceeding 5 00 16 00 52 00 55 80 6 00 17 00 53 00 56 20 7 00 18 00 54 00 56 60 8 00 19 00 55 00 57 00 9 00 20 00 56 00 57 40 10 00 21 00 57 00 57 80 11 00 22 00 58 00 58 20 12 00 23 00 59 00 58 60 13 00 24 00 60 00 59 00 14 00 25 00 61 00 59 40 25 00 35 00 72 00 63 80 26 00 35 80 73 00 64 20 27 00 36 60 74 00 64 60 28 00 37 40 75 00 65 00 29 00 38 20 76 00 65 40 30 00 39 00 77 00 65 80 31 00 39 80 78 00 66 20 32 00 40 60 79 00 66 60 33 00 41 40 80 00 67 00 34 00 42 20 81 00 67 40 35 00 43 00 82 00 67 80 36 00 43 80 83 00 68 20 37 00 44 60 84 00 68 60 38 00 45 40 85 00 69 00 39 00 46 20 86 00 69 40 40 00 47 00 87 00 69 80 41 00 47 80 88 00 70 20 42 00 48 60 89 00 70 60 43 00 49 40 90 00 71 00 44 00 50 20 91 00 71 40 45 00 51 00 92 00 71 80 46 00 51 80 93 00 72 20 Column: 467 & 468 Schedule - continued 47 00 52 60 94 00 72 60 48 00 53 40 95 00 73 00 49 00 54 20 96 00 73 40 50 00 55 00 97 00 73 80 51 00 55 40 98 00 74 20 52 00 57 00 103 00 76 60 53 00 57 40 104 00 77 00 48 00 53 40 99 00 75 00 49 00 54 20 100 00 75 40 50 00 55 00 101 00 75 80 51 00 56 20 102 00 76 20 52 00 57 00 103 00 76 60 53 00 57 40 104 00 77 00 54 00 57 80 105 00 77 40 55 00 58 20 106 00 77 80 56 00 58 60 107 00 78 20 57 00 59 00 108 00 78 60 58 00 59 40 109 00 79 00 59 00 59 80 110 00 79 40 60 00 60 20 111 00 79 80 61 00 60 60 112 00 80 20 62 00 61 00 113 00 80 60 63 00 61 40 114 00 81 00 64 00 61 80 115 00 81 40 65 00 62 20 116 00 81 80 66 00 62 60 117 00 82 20 67 00 63 00 118 00 82 60 68 00 63 40 119 00 83 00 69 00 63 80 120 00 83 40 70 00 64 20 121 00 83 80 71 00 64 60 122 00 84 20 75 00 65 00 126 00 85 40

2.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of S1,457,350 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. 60 of 1956. Sir, perhaps the most important items in this paper are Nos. 359 and 360. These seek provision to enable the revision of service pensions to be implemented. The question of the revision of service of pensions has been outstanding for some time and the Labour Front Government undertook to examine the matter shortly after taking office. At that time, a committee of the Federation Government was already engaged in examining the matter. Pension revision has always been taken on a pan-Malayan basis and it was decided to await the outcome of this examination before taking action in Singapore. The Federation committee reported towards the end of 1955. It recommended a revision of the Adjustment Allowances paid on pensions in issue before August, 1947, and the introduction of a new Supplementary Allowance to all pensions in issue before the 1st of January, 1955. A later committee also recommended the consolidation of all allowances and pensions and the revision of Cost of Living Allowance paid on post-consolidation pensions. The recommendations with regard to Adjustment and Supplementary Allowances were subsequently accepted by the Federation Government and introduced with effect from the 1st of January, 1955. These recommendations have been drawn up in the light of Federation conditions and it was necessary to find out whether they could be applied in Singapore without modification or whether some modification was required. This examination has now been concluded and it has been decided to follow the Federation recommendations with regard to Adjustment Allowance and Supplementary Allowance in broad principle. The Adjustment Allowance introduced in 1950 with effect from 1947 rose to a maximum of $25 per mensem on pensions of between $150 per mensem and $180 per mensem and then gradually tapered off until it disappeared altogether on pensions of $320 per mensem and over. The reason why the allowance was tapered off in this way was that it was considered at that time that pensions of $320 per mensem and over were adequate and did not require revision. Subsequently, however, doubt was expressed about the propriety of tapering off the allowance in this way. It was considered that the principle of adjustment should have been carried right through the scale. When Complementary Allowances were introduced in 1953, the principle of tapering off was abandoned and the allowance was applied to the whole scale subject to a ceiling of $60 per mensem on pensions of $400 per mensem and over. Therefore, as a first step towards the revision of pensions, it is appropriate and it is proposed to remove the anomaly of tapering from Adjustment Allowances and to fix a ceiling of $25 per mensem on all pensions in excess of $180 per mensem.Secondly, it is proposed to introduce a new Supplementary Allowance of the same nature as the revised Adjustment Allowance and Complementary Allowance and to apply it in the manner described in the Cmd.Paper. These two measures will have the effect of adjusting pre-consolidation pensions with post- consolidation pensions in so far as adjustment is practicable and justifiable. Considerable thought has been given to the question of a date of implementation. As hon. Members are aware, the Government is against back-dating as a matter of principle. On the other hand, the previous Government gave an undertaking to examine the matter of revision sympathetically in April, 1955, and the Federation Government has implemented with effect from the 1st of January, 1955. In the circumstances, it has been decided to implement with effect from the same date in Singapore.

Hon. Members are aware that depreciation in the value of money and in the purchasing power of the dollar has made conditions difficult for Government pensioners and I feel sure that they will support this measure. Item 361 seeks provision to pay a revised rate of Cost of Living Allowance to pensioners under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme which has now been approved by the Assembly. The other items in the paper, Sir, do not call for special comment. A full explanation of the need for the supplement is given in each case. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Committee of Supply, what day?

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

Schedule

The summary commences on page 8. Head 2- The sum of $1,170,400 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 3- Question proposed, "That the sum of $14,638 for Head 3 stand part of the Schedule."

If it please you, Sir, I would like to enquire how many Singapore students there are in the Irish Free State that we are called upon to spend the sum of $4,638 this year on the British Council?

I am afraid, Sir, I cannot give the Member for Cairnhill the exact information. I can assure him, however, that our contribution is calculated on a pro rata basis on the basis of the number of colonial students in Dublin.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I find that completely unsatisfactory. It may well be on a pro rata basis but at the same time it can be completely worthless. If there are 7 colonial students in all and each colony has to pay a seventh part, that is pro rata but I am not paying $4,638 of the colony's money for one student. That is an exaggerated way of putting it, it is true, Sir, but this House is entitled to full information when spending public money. I therefore move, Sir, that this item be adjourned for further consideration at a later date.

The hon. Member is out of order. This item cannot be adjourned.

I regret very much that I cannot give the Member for Cairnhill the information which he asks. I do not think that it is a matter of very great importance. I feel that he exaggerates the matter. The matter has been considered with great care by the Treasury. In all circumstances, the Treasury before making a recommendation to this Assembly assures itself that the money is to be justifiably spent.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $14,638 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12- The sum of $3,830 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19- The sum of $80,000 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- The sum of $1,106 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26- The sum of $2,690 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27- Question proposed, "That the sum of $117,826 for Head 27 stand part of the Schedule."

On a point of information, Sir. I would like to enquire whether the question is being pursued of seeking to recover part of the money that was embezzled by the principal now in prison. The item is No. 370, Sir.

The matter of recovery from the person responsible for the embezzlement has been gone into and I am satisfied that there is no possibility of recovery.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $117,826 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 38- The sum of $8,520 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45- The sum of $10 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54- The sum of $12,650 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $90,784 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 62- The sum of $50,000 for Head 62 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- The sum of $314 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 61- The sum of $430 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 48- The sum of $175,082 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $1,457,350 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,457,350 ordered to stand part of the motion.

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

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, with out Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,457,350 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. 60 of 1956," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,457,350 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. 60 of 1956.

3.04 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, 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 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 54 of 1956, together with the Report of the Director of Audit, Malaya, thereon, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 55 of 1956, should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Sir, the Financial Statements for 1955 together with the Report of the Director of Audit have now been tabled and it is considered desirable that they should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for examination without further delay. Standing Order 61 (2) prescribes: "... It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the Assembly to meet the public expenditure and such other accounts laid before the Assembly as the Assembly may refer to the Committee...".You, Sir, have held that the accounts which refer to sums granted by the Legislative Council and not by the Legislative Assembly are not automatically referred to the Public Accounts Committee under Standing Order 61 (2) but require a resolution of the Assembly under the same Standing Order. This is the reason for this motion. The greater part of the funds spent in 1955 were voted by the Legislative Council. Sir,I beg to move.

I second the motion.

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 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 54 of 1956, together with the Report of the Director of Audit, Malaya, thereon, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 55 of 1956, should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion which stands in my name reads as follows, That this House deplores the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance against persons and organisations without producing any evidence to justify its action. Since the last sitting of this House, the first phase of the big purge, which we knew was coming, has been completed. No less than some 300 persons have been arrested for banishment or detention and about a dozen organisations have been dissolved. There have been riots, arson, 13 deaths and about 100 injured. It is curious that all these things should happen in October. It is the time for wars and revolutions in the northern hemisphere. When the harvest has been collected, men's minds and energies turn to things other than the necessities of life and somehow I feel that it must have been laid down in the stars that this autumn 1956 was going to be a troubled one : riots in Poznan in Poland, Budapest, Hongkong, Singapore, and now a big war in the making in Egypt. The average man reading the local newspaper must have become quite cynical by now. When there were riots, in Hungary and the students rose against the brutal oppressive regime. Western commentators hailed them as patriots and courageous students who rose in defence of their freedom and welcomed them when they put demands against the Government. On 23rd October, the Straits Times said in headlines: "Fifteen demands listed by the students include: Complete freedom of the Press, abolition of the death penalty, permission to make trips to Western countries and the import of Western literature. Thousands of students told the authorities that they will stage street demonstrations unless their demands for more freedom and better living conditions for the whole country are granted within 14 days."

University students.

Sir, when Chinese Middle School students staged a stayin strike, they were denounced as subversive tools and lackeys of the Communists. When the Police flushed them out, it was greeted with ovation in the name of democracy and freedom. The hypocrisy of the whole business on both sides leaves the average man sickened. Depending upon where one stands, and on which side the students are - they are either democratic or subversive; they are either patriots or tools and lackeys. I am quite sure that in the Hungarian Press and in Moscow papers Hungarian students must have been denounced and the Singapore students hailed as patriots. Wherein does the truth lie? Who was responsible for the riots? Who began them? Who is in the right? There has been such a spate of biased propaganda that we might do well to retrace the events of the last month. The Hon. the Chief Minister in his statement this morning gave his Government's version of what took place. The charge is that these 300 "subversive" characters, who are now safely in jug, and these now dissolved Communist-front organisations were responsible for the rioting, and the shooting that became necessary, the arson, the curfew and all the hardships that followed. I find it difficult to agree with that interpretation of events. On 7th September, the Labour Front Coalition Government received a unanimous vote of confidence from the whole of the Legislative Assembly on their promise to call an all-Party conference to plan tactics for the next merdeka talks and to plan united action in case the talks failed. I repeat once more: Not one word then was let out about the big purge which must have been decided on by then. On 18th September, six persons, all well-known leaders of trade unions or civic organisations, were arrested for banishment to China. That was the opening gambit. In a clever and a cunning way, the Government spotlighted the attack on "Aliens," on those not born in this country. In this way, it isolated the Chinese-speaking section of the population. The next move was against the Chinese Middle Schools' Students' Union. Again the Chinese-speaking section of the population. First, the Union was banned. Then the President was arrested under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The day before the Legislative Assembly debate on 3rd October, they arrested Chia Ek Tian, Central Executive Committee Member of the P.A.P. and Assistant Secretary of the Bukit Panjang Branch of the Factory and Shop Workers' Union. This was a direct warning to the Secretary General of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union (the Member for Bukit Timah). There was no attempt to disguise this warning in the debate. The Hon. the Chief Minister openly stated that he was prepared to move against anyone on whom the Police had secret information that he was subversive. The implication was: the fact that he was Secretary General of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, Assistant Secretary General of the P.A.P. and an Assemblyman was not going to protect him. The next move was on the 10th of October - once more against the Chinese school students. A list of 142 students was given to the School Management Committees. They were to expel these students if they wanted to continue the schools. Surely the Government did not expect that the Management Committees would quietly go back and tell the 142 students that they were expelled and that was the end of the matter? Immediately, there was a stay-in strike at the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School. Meanwhile, to keep up the pretence of democracy, public rallies, public signature campaigns were allowed, and the propaganda battle went on from 10th October to 24th October - a battle which very few people have any doubt that the Government lost. On the 24th of October, the purge moved into top gear. The Hon. the Chief Minister broadcast over Radio Malaya and gave the students roughly 24 hours to clear out from the schools. Sir, no one had the slightest doubt that in that situation that was the fuse. The Government had decided to make the final big push. Yes, it is true that the People's Action Party held a meeting at the Beauty World on the 25th October from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The dead-line for the big flush out was 8 p.m. A half- hearted attempt has been made to throw the blame of the rioting which took place, on this meeting at which the Hon. the Chief Minister said that the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) made inflammatory speeches. I have said this to the Government time and time again. If he said anything which was seditious or if anybody said anything which is against the law, he can be charged, he can be prosecuted for it. To my knowledge, no one has been charged or prosecuted. Sir, that night as I came down from the meeting at Bukit Timah at 7 o'clock I had not the slightest doubt that something was going to happen. Nobody who passed that way had the slightest doubt. Crowds were gathering outside the Chinese High School. The whole road was jammed. The Police made no attempt to disperse the crowd. They cordoned off Bukit Timah Road and diverted traffic into Dunearn Road, but the people were not asked to break up and move along. Knowing the temper of the crowd, one must assume that sooner or later such a crowd would get out of hand. Why the Police chose to do nothing until it got out of hand is a question which only those who planned the Labour Front strategy can answer. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister in his statement this morning skated over the riots. He said: "This was the situation, Sir, when the first riot incidents developed. I do not propose to take up the time of hon.Members by giving a detailed account of the riot incidents, as these have already been reported in the Press." That is true. But we knew that that was the signal for the big purge. At half-past eight, riots; at half-past two the next night, Police parties raided the Factory and Shop Workers' Union, the Bus Workers' Union and arrested some 250 persons including Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Member for Bukit Timah, and Mr Devan Nair, both members of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. From then on, the purge was in full swing and in the following days of rioting and day and night curfew, more subversive elements were picked up. Then on the 2nd of November, the Government announced the dissolution of the Farmers Association and the Wooden House Dwellers Association. The leaders of these Associations were already arrested. They were at the premises of the Factory and Shop Workers' Union on the night of the 25th. Those are the facts. On those facts, we ask these questions. Who was responsible? Who began it? Who was right? Sir, I did not believe that the Hon. the Chief Minister would have no less eminent a person than the Prime Minister of England set the example in giving flimsy pretexts for police actions. The Prime Minister of England said, "British troops are going to land in Egypt because they are going to carry out a Police action. For the sake of peace, democracy, freedom, happiness of mankind, it is necessary to bomb Egyptian citizens and occupy the Suez Canal." The whole world says, "This is naked and open aggression." The Prime Minister of England is not disturbed. He said that he was carrying out the duty which the United Nations should have carried out. The Israelis in anticipation of attack attacked the Egyptians. Because they were going towards the Suez Canal, the British and French decided that they must protect the freedom of the waterway and intervened - intervened not by attacking the aggressor but intervened by joining the aggressor and walloping the defender. Mr Gaitskell for the Opposition said, "The British joined the burglars and shot the householder." If I had to choose between being in the company of the Rt. Hon. Sir Anthony Eden and the Rt. Hon. Mr Hugh Gaitskell, I would rather be on the side of the leader of the Opposition. That is what it is all about. Sir, the Government has declared that its intention is to purge subversive elements and break up the Communist-front organisations. We are a generous people by nature. Therefore we assume that the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) became Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary because of an intense desire to help to purge the subversive elements, to save Singapore for democracy, to save this vital corner of the free world in the interest of democracy. That was the declared intention. We accept it at face value. But in the battle, I fear that Government was defeated. By the time the battle was joined and the "Middle Road boys" were nabbed on the night of the 26th, the Chinese-speaking population of Singapore was convinced that the Government was not purging subversive elements but were crushing Chinese culture, civilisation and education, and that the Government was oppressive and fascist. Sir, I do not believe that my friend the Member for Ulu Bedok (Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat) is a Fascist.

Thank you.

My only regret was that he never brought it home to the people.

What did you do?

Sir, I did not embark on this purge. If I had to embark on this purge, I would use the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance against Mr Sutherland and see that he does not cause more damage to Singapore than Europeans are already doing. The foolish, the silly, the completely inept interference in local affairs when the best thing they can do is to slink out of the picture has convinced me that the white man is determined to destroy himself in the Far East. Not only they have decided to destroy themselves in the Far East but they have decided to destroy themselves in the whole of the Middle East too. I was very amused to see that the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas) had very little to say on Egypt. The man who has something to say on everything, including the Muslims Bill on which he admitted he knew nothing, could not condemn his own Government for a fascist act of aggression.

Not my Government.

Now, come, let us not quibble about these niceties.

Leave him alone and let him have his fun.

Sir, this is not fun. This is serious business. I could not understand why an elected Government which had admitted that it did not have internal security in its power (everybody knows that we went to London and fought the British over internal security and we all packed up over that issue) should have embarked on this purge. They lost the battle because the odds were against them. As long as the British are here, to use British troops against their own people to carry out this purge is the seal of death of any political Party. We watched with extreme interest the play of forces. I have said this before and I say this now: there are three forces in this country; British Imperialism, Communism and Malayanationalism.

Where are you?

I said before that I am nationalist and I still am. But for a nationalist to go and join forces with the British before one has got the upper hand on the British is a political act of folly. In the propaganda campaign which was being waged, the Government had the whole apparatus of state in its hands : the radio, a friendly Press at its disposal. It could have called public meetings. But it was the other side that organised. Six thousand students, everyone of them went home to a family of ten and convinced the family of ten that the Government was fascist. Six thousand times ten makes 60,000. There were mass signature campaigns all over the town, and the Government could not even move in its defence. Whatever the Government's intentions, it has not succeeded in bringing it home to the people. If we want to run a democrary, we must have the people on our side. That was what the Government did not do. There have been persistent demands for public trials for these persons who have been arrested. It is the least that the Government can do to retrieve their position. If, in fact, these men were re sponsible for the riots, were responsible for the disorders and were, in fact, going to organise an armed overthrow of the Government, then let there be open trials, or let us have a public inquiry. Let the Government produce its evidence publicly to substantiate the allegations it has made against the subversive elements and these Communist-front organisations. Sir, I had hoped this morning that they might have produced the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) to participate in these proceedings but I was disappointed. In fact, I had a letter for him sent from Kota Bahru, no doubt someone hoped that he would be coming out here to make his stand against the Government in the proper Assembly for public debate. The Hon. the Chief Minister had said that some people were under a misapprehension that an Assemblyman could not be arrested. Let me tell him that the Member for Bukit Timah was never under such a misapprehension. The Member for Bukit Timah was quietly waiting for him and his Police on the morning of the 25th of October -

27th.

27th. I beg his pardon. Sir, I have so far been unable to trace a Report of the House of Commons No. 164 of 1940 in which reference was made to a book on constitutional law that a Member of Parliament can be detained by preventive detention by order of executive authority. I do not know how far this particular Report applies to our situation. That was a Report in time of war and we are in a very different position here. But I do hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that not only will you have received the information of the arrest of the Member for Bukit Timah, but you would at the same time look into the constitutional position which the Member's detention has created. Amongst other things, one wonders if the Orders in Council which say that a Member who is absent from two consecutive sittings automatically vacates his seat are going to apply in the case of the Member for Bukit Timah.

Not in his case.

Well, I expect that if Her Majesty's colonial Government of Singapore prevents the Member for Bukit Timah from appearing in this Assembly, that is a reasonable excuse. But it is not really the constitutional position that we are concerned about. If the Government wants to retain the slightest pretensions to democracy, it must bring the Member for Bukit Timah to open trial. If it cannot, then it must release him. And that goes for all the other persons who have been detained. The Hon. the Chief Minister knows well the case of Mr Seah Yong, translator of the Nanyang Siang Pau. Mr Seah Yong was arrested on banishment and the Singapore Union of Journalists have this to say of Mr Seah Yong in a release on the 26th of October, 1956: "Three officials of the Singapore Union of Journalists visited Mr Seah Yong at the Outram Road Remand Prison on October the 20th five days after his arrest on Banishment Orders and interviewed him for an hour. As a result of that interview, we are more than ever convinced that Mr Seah was not involved in activities aimed at illegally undermining the Government and our fears for the freedom of the Press have been immeasurably increased." And the Singapore Union of Journalists sets out what Mr Seah told them took place in the interrogation and it has this comment to make: "The fact that these four questions were put to Mr Seah and that he was not interrogated about anything else is difficult to reconcile with your (meaning the Chief Minister's) assurance that Mr Seah's activities had no connection with his trade union activities." Sir, the Union of Journalists may or may not be right. The point is that there is considerable public disquiet as a result in part of inept tactics and inept handling of the situation. If the Government gets the journalistic profession against it, then the Government must expect that the Press is likely to be unfriendly, and even to make worse the terrific public campaign against the activities of this Government. That is one side of the question : convincing the people by open trial in Court or by some public inquiry that the Government's action was well-founded and that there was evidence to justify such action. But there is another side to the Government's action. That is the toxic side effects of this big dose of purgative that the Government has decided to administer. The Government carried out its purge of "subversive" characters. Now private employers have decided to carry out their private purges, following the example of the Government. In some cases, there are signs that these private purges were pre-arranged because the employers moved from prepared positions. The Tay Koh Yat Bus Company, for instance, had some 50 odd spare drivers and conductors for some time before this big purge began. After the purge, the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company carried out its own purge. It is the same story all over again. A new union had been formed called the Singapore Transport Employees' Union. There was an agreement with the old union which had 270 members in the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company regulating the hours of work. Now the Company says that this agreement is invalid. They said it on the 3rd of November. A new work schedule has been introduced and all the old 270 members are now undergoing special treatment at the hands of the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company. These were men who were formerly given eight hours of work a day by agreement between the Company and the Bus Workers' Union. These men are now put on 2-hour shifts, and members from the spare pool and the special reserve spare pool are getting the 8-hour shifts. Slowly the Company, as this new Transport Employees' Union expands, will clean up the remnants which the Government had not cleaned up, probably because the Government had decided that they were not "subversive". But from the Company's point of view, they are. In this particular instance, there are signs of pre-arranged positions, which means that the Company had an inkling that there was going to be this opportunity and seized it. But there are others who did not move from pre-arranged positions. There is, for instance, the Yew Lee Cheong Tin Factory. They did not expect this but the moment it happened, they sacked all 23 workers and all members of the Factory and Shop Workers' Union. The whole lot was purged. Hume Industries purged 6 shop stewards. Malayan Textile Mills : 1 spinning worker, a shop steward was purged. It seems that the Imperial Government too wants to carry out a private purge of its own. The Naval Base authorities took the opportunity to revoke the pass that the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim) has had for years and years to enter the Naval Base. I warned the Government when we passed the Protected Places Ordinance that they must be on their guard and not allow this Ordinance to be abused by the Naval Base authorities or by any other employer. But the Naval Base says, "As a result of the emergency, casual visitors cannot be allowed into the protected place." Sir, I might have been a casual visitor going up to advise the General Council of the Naval Base Labour Union when I was stopped by the Naval Base authorities, no doubt for reasons of state, for the security of the Naval Base, the Dockyard and the ships inside. But to exclude the Member for Sembawang as a casual visitor - 4,000 of his constituents are living inside the Base - and they had previously issued a pass to him, is an example of the chain reaction which the Government has set in motion. The Government says that it has channels of information not available to other members of the public. We must assume that those whom the Government had not purged had been cleared of any subversive tint. Obviously these employers have also got private channels of information not available to the Hon. the Chief Minister and they are carrying out their own purges. On his own reasoning, the Hon. the Chief Minister should approve of their actions: "Yes, they are quite right because as they are well informed we should not doubt the wisdom of their action." But there is an even more poisonous side-effect of Operation Liberation namely, the appearance of British troops, rifles, bayonets, helicopters, aeroplanes, Commanders-in-Chief. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister said that the elected Government was in com- mand of Operation Liberation. But how can the Hon. the Chief Minister counter the effect of these British troops at barricade points at all bridges? How can he counter the pictures in all the Press of Maj.-Gen. Tulloch, General Officer Commanding, Singapore Base District, and of Mr Nigel Morris, Commissioner of Police, in charge of the whole operation? The identification in the minds of the people of this Government with armed British Imperialism is something which will take a long time to live down. What is going to be the denouement? I am not interested in the immediate result of this "Operation Liberation". The reality of power is in the hands of the British. Let us face that fact. The days of the curfew and the riots brought home the truth that he who has the rifle barrel has the last word. A great Chinese Marxist dialectician once wrote that a new society is born out of the rifle barrel. That is true of this situation: with a Britain tough, reactionary, its Government prepared to precipitate a world war to defend its economic interest in the Middle East. If you cannot wrest that rifle barrel from her, then you are in no position to argue with her. To have gone behind the white man holding a rifle barrel is, in my analysis, a tactical error. Sir, the Labour Front may be right in believing that its actions will win sympathetic approval from Mr LennoxBoyd and the Tory British Government. But the Labour Front also believes that it will win concessions for merdeka in this way. The Labour Front is wrong. As long as this Tory Government is in power, any attempt to exercise merdeka in the interest of the people of Malaya, any attempt to take away gold dollars from Britain to raise the standard of living of the people of Malaya, will be met with the most terrific resistance. The correct policy would be to use this power situation, of the British, the Communists and the Nationalists, in such a way as, first, to put the British into an untenable position. Having put them into an untenable position, then we shall be in a position to take over the rifle barrel. When this whole tangled skein is unravelled in ten months' time - I hear elections are to be in August 1957 - then is the time we shall have to sit down to weigh the position. Sir, the Middle Road group (as they have been called) are now in jail. They knew that they were going to be nabbed. They knew it because the Hon. the Chief Minister's actions were so apparent. But they made the Government pay the heaviest price for that retreat. And they are tough and resilient. I might tell the Hon. the Chief Minister that the Member for Bukit Timah has asked me to convey his compliments to the Chief Minister and to express his thanks to the Hon. the Chief Secretary for the treatment he is now receiving in the Central Police Station as a V.I.P. detainee. Let us assume for the sake of argument that they are subversive characters. How long can you keep them there? One year, two years, four years, six years? The Member for Bukit Timah is learning English and Malay. I brought his father to see him and he gave his father a list of books he was going to study while he is enjoying the comforts of one of Her Majesty's police stations. Amongst the books are an English/Malay dictionary and a Malay/Chinese dictionary. When he comes out, apart from speeches in Hokkien to denounce the Chief Minister in no uncertain terms, it is not unlikely that, given the teacher companions in jail, he might be denouncing the Chief Minister in Malay and English too. Sir, this is the decisive turning point since the elections. I would say this for my hon. opponents on the other side of this House : they have decided to take the bull by the horns, and I wish them well. I hope they will not be gored by the bull's horns. Let us assume that a thorough purge is carried out and a vacuum is created amongst the workers and the farmers. No more Farmers Association. No more Factory and Shop Workers' Union. What happens next? There was a vacuum for six years from 1948 to 1954. The workers were unorganised, the farmers were unorganised and nobody filled that vacuum. There were trade unionists like one Mr Peter Williams and some other people like him. But it was only the Malayan Communist Party working under the limitations of an underground organisation that worked away like demons and built up a force which the Tunku and this present Government have to meet. This is a fight for the loyalty of the people. We all talk of fighting to win over the masses, but, unfortunately, we are all amateurs against professional revolutionaries. We are not so amateurish now. This is the challenge. If you want to organise the masses, you must find the people to organise them. Masses do not organise by themselves. Then you will come up against the real crux of the problem. Can you find the organisers and get them on your side? The Marxists call them cadres. Can you find the cadres? You lock up one, three others spring up. You lock up three, thirty spring up. One has to ask "Why is the position like that?" It is because of two factors: first, an endemic economic and social situation which brings about a great sense of grievance against society, and second, the appeal of an ideology that, theoretically, provides the answers. I and my Party have lived with this problem for the last two years. If we do not solve this problem, then I say, we perish. It will not be solved just by using the Societies Ordinance or the Banishment Ordinance or the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The battle is a battle for organisers, for cadres. To win these people over to your side, you must give them the belief of a just cause, give them the conviction and the drive to work for a better and happier society. I may not always have agreed with some of my friends who are now in prison in Changi but I agreed with them on one thing : the determination to wreck the present colonial system as soon as possible. For I agreed with them that the colonial system is evil. Sir, the biggest tribute that this Government has paid to these "subversive" characters is to have tacitly admitted that only 300 people had organised thousands of people in Singapore. The final battle in this three-cornered fight - I am not speaking as a Party politician - depends upon whether you can convince the people of Malaya, the people who are prepared to work and fight, that the democratic State is the answer to the problems of Malaya. It you can convince them of it, then you will get the intellectuals on your side - the persons with the ability, the conviction, the drive and integrity. And if you get them on your side, you win the battle. But if they go over to the other side, then you have lost the battle. The Government in making this purge had misunderstood the power situation in Malaya. It is not their expatriate colleagues in the Council of Ministers who decide the fate of Singapore. Their attitude and friendliness do not decide the concessions which the British Government will or will not give. A Tory Britain with Sir Anthony Eden as Prime Minister is not going to be swayed into concessions by a friendly local nationalist group if that group is a genuinely nationalist group? Do hon. Members on the other side realise that a Tory Britain is today bombing Col. Nasser who is an anti-Communist? It has nothing to do with Communism or Democracy. It is concerned with preserving, as Sir Anthony Eden said, the way of life of the Western people. The way of life of the Western people depends on the oil wells in Arabia. If they lose the oil wells, there will be five million people unemployed in Britain within one year. When those are the stakes, Britain is not interested in pre serving the Middle East for the sake of democracy. Britain is interested in preserving Britain's economic interest and her way of life which depends on those economic interests. That was the Labour Front's tactical miscalculation of the position. There should never have been this miscalculation. But the errors having been made, the least that the Labour Front can do is to bring these men to trial, prove the charges against them and satisfy the public conscience. It they cannot, then they have no alternative but to release them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. 3.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion before the House because as an elected Assemblyman, a Nationalist and a Democrat, that is the only honest and logical thing to do. When I stood for elections just over a year and a half ago, it was on the understanding that I would fight for a self-governing, democratic Malaya. That was a solemn pledge given to my electorate and I have not forgotten it. I am not going to betray it today. Certainly when I stood for elections, I never told the voters that I would achieve merdeka if necessary by the arbitrary arrests and detentions of my fellow-Singaporeans. I knew then that the achievement of merdeka would not be an easy task but I never for a moment thought that the price that would have to be paid would be the mass arrests of trade unionists and civic leaders and even an elected Assemblyman. This motion before the House is in conformity with the spirit of the election pledges I made and I am sure that a great many Members of this House made. I was pledged to fight against colonialism -

Order. Moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed, what day, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?

Tomorrow, Sir

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

I second the motion.

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