Hansard, 1956-11-06

The Honourable Member for Tanjong Pagar, in moving the motion standing in his name, in effect invited me to look into the constitutional position relating to the detention of the Honourable Member for Bukit Timah under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. I take it the question uppermost in the hon. Member's mind is the question of privilege. I had, of course, already looked into the position. Under subsection (3) , paragraph (e) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, - "The seat of an Elected or Nominated Member of the Legislative Assembly shall become vacant - if he shall be sentenced by a Court in any part of Her Majesty's dominions to death or to imprisonment (by whatever name called) for a term of or exceeding twelve months;". It would therefore appear from that section that Mr Lim Ching Siong is still a Member of this Assembly. As a Member, he has, of course, prima facie, a right to enter the Assembly and take his seat in this Chamber. Whether or not his detention deprives him of that right is debatable. Under section 65 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council- I quote - "It shall be lawful, by laws enacted under this Order, to determine and regulate the privileges, immunities and powers of the Assembly and its Members; but no such privileges, immunities or powers shall exceed those of the Commons' House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or of the Members thereof." We have, as hon. Members know, the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, and I can only draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph (a) of section 15 of that Ordinance which reads: "Any stranger in respect of the Assembly who - hinders or obstructs any member of the Assembly coming to, going from or being within the Chamber or the precincts thereof shall be guilty of an offence...". In the House of Commons the detention of a Member under regulation 18 (b) of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts of 1939 and 1940 led to the Committee of Privileges being directed to consider whether such detention constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. The Committee reported there was no breach of privilege involved. As the law now stands in Singapore, it is not for me to express any opinion in the matter. The question is one which will, if raised, have to be resolved elsewhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I nave no doubt that hon. Members would like to complete the business at today's sitting. May I have your assent, Sir, and the consent of this House to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders?

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

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

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

Order read for resumption of debate on Motion-[5th November, 1956]: "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." -(Mr Lee Kuan Yew). 10.06 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying yesterday afternoon before the moment of interruption of the Assembly at 4 p.m., this House should be reminded of the election pledges made in 1955. It would, of course, be easy for me to snap my fingers at my own election pledges. The voters can do nothing, at least until the next election. Of course, a lot of things can happen before the next election comes, but I am old fashioned enough to believe that election pledges are solemn undertakings which must be discharged to the best of one's ability. If, having been elected, I find that it is necessary to change my election promises, then the only honourable and decent thing to do is to go back to my electors and seek a new mandate. I would do this, Sir, rather than try and explain away those flagrant breaches of promises as honourable acts of patriotism. This motion before the House is therefore a challenge to all elected Assemblymen whether they intend to stand by their own election pledges. I understand that there may be a move on the part of some Members to amend this motion. I can understand such a move. The motion as it stands can be an uncomfortable reminder of those happy days when we made clear to every voter that we were anti-colonial fighters pure and simple. Our election manifestoes and our election speeches are there to prove what our sentiments were like then. It may be thought that by amending this motion it may be possible to conceal those noble sentiments which have become embarrassing to some Members of this House, but however much this motion may be amended, our election manifestoes and our election speeches confront us. However much we may twist and turn the people, remember that we went before them; we were pledged to fight for freedom against those who had deprived us of it. During the election we made it quite clear to the people that we had to fight the British to get it. I do not remember, Sir, any Assemblyman saying that it would be necessary to fight subversive elements, and yet two successive sessions of this Assembly have been devoted to getting this House to approve the arbitrary dissolution of organisations and arrest of individuals. One can see how the character of this Assembly has changed in the course of the last few months. Until the Chief Minister's unexplained visit to London early this year, the fight for merdeka was a straightforward one between the people of this country and the colonial power. The majority of speeches made in this House made this clear. The battle was with the Colonial Office. The emphasis was one of a united front of all anti-colonial parties and organisations against the forces of colonialism. Now it is a question of the Colonial Office, the colonial officials and so-called nationalists in the Labour Front joining together to fight against so-called subversive elements of the local population to achieve merdeka. But who are and what are subversive elements? An hon. Member: Ask yourself.

What constitutes subversion? Is militant trade unionism subversion? Are systematic and constitutional efforts to bring about the downfall of colonialism and the local groups associated with it subversion? Is constitutional action, however embarrassing to Government and the colonial powers, subversion? The Government has given no clear indication what it means by subversive elements. Sometimes it claims that it is proceeding only against Communists and Communist-front organisations, and since the Malayan Communist Party is in armed revolt against constituted authority, the Government's anti-subversion campaign is directed against those connected with the M.C.P. If this is the case, then it is important for the Government to give proof that this anti-subversion is not directed against the nationalists dedicated to the overthrow of colonialism by constitutional means. This the Government can do by bringing those arrested for subversion to trial and proving conclusively that they were involved in unconstitutional and illegal acts. The Government has claimed that it has documentary evidence, which has convinced it that those arrested were subversive. If that evidence is sufficient to convince the Government, it should be good enough for the courts also. It has been the proud boast of democracy that, unlike the totalitarian countries, a man is imprisoned only when proved to be guilty of a specific crime. It is no use praising democracy as a superior way of life when it, too, finds it necessary to do things that the Communists are accused of doing. At least the Communists often bring those charged with subversion to public trial. If Government has proof that those arrested are guilty of illegal acts, let this proof be tested in a court of law. It is necessary for the Government to do this if only to quell doubts that these arbitrary arrests are a prelude to the crushing of constitutional nationalist and trade union activities. It is not enough for Government to claim that it is satisfied with the proof it has. The Government is not an impartial judge in this matter, particularly as these arrests have been directed against organisations and individuals who are not friendly to Government. Certainly the recent arrests have been taken by certain employers to mean that these are not directed solely against violent Communist subversion. Since I am free, I assume that Government is not of the view that I am a subversive character, but the authorities of the Naval Base, Sir, take a different view. I and the legal adviser to the Naval Base Labour Union (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) were certainly treated as undesirable characters. Though elected by the voters of Sembawang Constituency, I was denied entry to the Naval Base area. I must assume that responsible and fairly intelligent men run the Naval Base area. If they can construe the Government's action to mean that even those not arrested by the Government are subversive characters, how much more so will the other employers not as enlightened as the Naval Base authorities? They look upon the clean-up as encouragement to carry on a clean-up of their own. If an elected Assemblyman like me can be treated in this high-handed manner, what is the treatment meted out to thousands of simple trade unionists and anti-colonialists? An hon. Member: Prison!

I am not alone in these fears. Even the Trades Union Congress thought it necessary to warn employers not to take advantage of the recent disturbances. Some employers have already begun their own purge of what they consider are undesirable elements. This is inevitable. The Government makes it clear that it would proceed against those who take advantage of the present uncertainty and fear. Whether the Government likes it or not, the employers are today confident and the workers are living under the shadow of fear. These fears can only be removed by making it clear to all that the clean-up of so-called subversives is not a clean-up of trade unionists and anti-colonialists. The best way of doing this is to bring those accused of subversion before the courts and either convict them for their acts or free them unconditionally. Otherwise the Government must take full responsibility for all the consequences of their actions, including the ruthless break-up of trade unions by employers and the persecution of anti- colonialists. Question proposed. 10.16 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move an amendment to the substantive motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The amendment I propose to move is by deleting the word "deplores" in the first line of the motion and substituting therefor the word "supports" and by deleting all the words "against persons and organisations without producing any evidence to justify its action", and substituting a full stop at the end of the word "Ordinance" in the third line. The amended motion will thus read: "That this House supports the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance." Sir, I beg to submit copies of the amendment. Copies of the amendment handed in.

I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if the proposed amendment should read: "To leave out all the words after the word 'House' in line one and to insert the words 'supports the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance'." The Minister can then proceed on those lines.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to you. I therefore formally move the amendment as just stated by you, Sir, that is, To leave out all the words after the word "House" and to insert the words "supports the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance". The Member for Tanjong Pagar, in moving his motion, asked, "Who began the riots?" He tried his very best to put the blame on the Government, saying it was apparent that the thousands who gathered in front of the Chinese High School in Bukit Timah Road were collected there for the purpose of the riots, but he conveniently forgot to mention that it was after the Member for Bukit Timah and his henchmen had arrived at the scene that the riots began. The Member for Bukit Timah, as pointed out by the Chief Minister, made inflammatory speeches at the Beauty World, and soon after the meeting, those who attended it drifted along to the High School vicinity and almost at an instant jeered at the Police. It is significant to note that the Member for Bukit Timah at that meeting said that instead of shouting "Merdeka" the people should now shout, "Pah Mata", which means "Beat the Police". Is there any doubt whatsoever as to who sparked off the riots? The Member for Tanjong Pagar also, if I remember rightly, mentioned the word "hyprocrisy". To put it mildly, I think that the hon. Member himself is a hypocrite.

Order. That, of course, is a completely unparliamentary word. Will the Minister please withdraw it?

I withdraw that word, Sir. I was about to mention this fact, that although the Federation Chief Minister in his speech quite recently flayed politicians who made use of school boys in the political game, yet at many of the meetings held by the P.A.P., there were thousands of students present at those meetings. As against this glaring fact, the Member for Tanjong Pagar sought to blame the Government for its actions. The Government was responsible for rousing the emotions of the Chinese-speaking people and separating the Chinese-speaking population from the English-speaking population. May I remind him that among those arrested were his friends - Messrs. Devan Nair and Puthucheary and two other Malay gentlemen. Surely those people are not Chinese-speaking?

That was the last stage.

Now let me turn, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question of the expulsion of the 142 pupils which caused a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. It would be interesting to note that among those 142 pupils there were young adults ranging from the age of 21 to 25 and that none of them were under 15 years old. Even in spite of this fact and in order not to deny education to those who genuinely seek it, I have given the undertaking that if those expelled students would apply personally to me with their guardians, I would consider their cases individually and that there might be a possibility of providing them with education by segregation from other pupils. The Member for Tanjong Pagar also touched on the question of mass signature campaigns. My reliable information on this subject is that young pupils have been made use of in forcing ignorant and illiterate people to sign. The lies that were used were that if 200,000 signatures could be obtained, all those arrested would be released and that there would be a guarantee for non-Singapore born aliens to be immune from banishment. Here again Members will see that young pupils were being made use of in the political game. It has been said that students in Hungary staged mass demonstrations and that they were termed as courageous students. The Member for Tanjong Pagar attempted to draw a parallel between those students and our students, but he forgets that those students in Hungary are University students and not pupils of middle schools. The word "student" in Singapore has assumed a meaning indicating anyone from a toddler attending a kindergarten to one doing post-graduate work in the University. The pupils in the middle schools are still children and it is their primary duty to finish their studies before they take part in any adult activities. I would draw the attention of the House and the public to a very glaring fact among the Chinese middle school students. A Communist flag was found in the Chinese High School. Does the Member for Tanjong Pagar suggest that the Government should sit tight and watch these children wave the Hammer and Sickle in front of our eyes and do nothing about it? As soon as the sit-down strike was organised in the two schools, the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School, a student, in a fiery speech, said: "Our strength being invincible, should the Police take any action against us we would unite our strength to go against the police batons and guns to the last drop of our blood." Another student said: "Arm ourselves in time of necessity when facing another struggle." Is there any difference between workers who armed themselves with bottles, stones, iron bars and acid in the riots and the pupils who vowed to battle the Police with their blood? Yesterday a body of pupils distributed a circular to all pupils and parents. They styled themselves as "The Entire Body of Fellow-Students of the Chung Cheng and Chinese High Schools". This "entire body" forgets that there are 2,513 pupils who refuse to follow their steps and who refuse to join themselves with this unworthy lot. I will quote passages from this circular: "We have broken camp or dissolved our assembly in the schools according to plan. This does not mean that we are afraid of criminal force or that it tantamounts to failure. Our planned dispersal or break camp is mainly for the sake of achieving a more effective form of safeguarding Chinese education and of striving for the interests of the teachers and students of the Chinese schools. At the present junction, we must stick firmly to four points. (1) To restore Chinese schools to normalcy unconditionally. (2) To resolutely oppose the re-registration of students sponsored by the Ministry of Education. (3) To stop further arrests and sacking of teachers and students of Chinese schools. (4) To rescind the order of expelling 142 fellow-students. We will oppose the intrigue of the Ministry of Education to re-register and to reorganise the Chinese schools. It is the first step taken by the Government to wrest the right of management of the Chinese schools from the Management Committees as a prelude to the complete domination and control over Chinese schools. Fellow-students of Singapore! Unite together to make active preparations for the struggle to safeguard Chinese education. We appeal to the parents out of a sense of righteousness to oppose the unreasonable attitude of the Government and not to send their sons and daughters to register." It is a document which is not surprising to me. All they attempt to do is to lay the blame on the Government and nothing is said about their own acts. They presume that what they have been doing is right and that they are above the law. This document shows the arrogance on the part of these children - children who are conceited, who think they are infallible, who think that they can go on flouting the authority of their parents, their teachers and the Government. It is quite clear that they are not interested at all in education, that they intend to fight Government, to subdue Government, so that they can stage another victory march. In moving this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask all reasonable people to support the Government in its Operation Liberation - liberation of the workers from exploitation, from pseudo trade unionists; liberation of the pupils from Communist indoctrination and the masses from totalitarian tyranny. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment and reserve the right to speak at a later stage in the debate.

The original Question was, "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 when an amendment has been proposed to leave out all the words after the word 'House' in line one and there to insert the words: "supports the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance". The Question now before the House is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 10.33 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one issue before the sober people of Singapore, one political issue which overshadows everything else to an extent that every other issue shrivels to the point of no importance. And that issue is - Can this Government obtain a new constitution that will end colonial rule? I am conscious, Sir, that that is the only key question for any decent citizen; and the subsidiary questions of the basis of the new constitution and the date. Operation Merdeka is the only operation of significance to everyone of us, and looking at that issue, we must recognise that in these five months during which the Government has been in office, the Chief Minister has gained not only the confidence of large sections of the population of Singapore, including those who were timid about Merdeka, but what is of far more importance, he has gained the absolute confidence and trust of British military and commercial interests. Early last year I recognised that it was vital to gain that confidence in order to achieve Merdeka for the people. I tried desperately to gain that confidence by sweet reasonableness and ultimately by shock tactics. I failed. In five short months the Chief Minister has succeeded to an extraordinary extent. I personally am now convinced that the Chief Minister is the only man that Singapore has in today's circumstances who can bring us Merdeka in the shortest possible time.

Down with the personality cult!

I seem to hear the voice of Khrushchev!

Mao.

Sir, Mao too. Sir, it may be thought that I am now playing the role of a loyal stooge, but I would like to say this: I entered politics because I passionately believed in the democratic process, the process of parliamentary democracy and freedom for the people of Singapore as essential for their healthy growth; and in order to attract their faith and their confidence in that process, I have at all times sought to tell them only the truth. I have never lied to the people of Singapore, whatever the difficulties and the pressures; and whatever the difficulties and the pressures today, Sir, or tomorrow, I will not lie to them. Therefore, Sir, let me repeat - I believe the Chief Minister is the best man we have today to bring home a decent constitution for Singapore within the shortest possible time. It therefore follows that any act which weakens this Government weakens our drive for Merdeka; and a censure of this Government or the fall of this Government would mean the indefinite postponement of stability and peace and freedom. The Government is in a unique position, Sir, that whether it does right or whether it does wrong, the decent citizen of Singapore who wants freedom from colonial rule must give it all the strength and support he can. It was very heartening yesterday to hear the Chief Minister declare that he is aiming for a new constitution and full and free elections not later than August next. A concrete statement of that character goes a long way to dispel such doubts and anxieties as may have been building up. I am only sorry that the Chief Minister has not been able to give us a definite date for the constitutional talks. From what he said, I gather that he is ready but the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not and he is trying to push it off. That is understandable. The Chief Minister has indicated that he is going to London in mid-December to discuss the agenda with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Sir, the Chief Minister was with me last December in London and he knows that the fixing of the agenda is a wholly minor matter which we freely admitted could have been done by letter. There were then other matters to be attended to. I would urge him to consider fixing the agenda by cable and utilising the dates he has with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in December for full constitutional talks. He knows the feelings of the Labour Front on the subject. I add the voice of the people of Cairnhill in this plea that he pursue energetically the matter of an early date for the talks. The psychological moment in London for these talks is, I believe, soon. An early date for the constitutional talks, Sir, would also help to restore the morale and confidence of some decent citizens of Singapore who have been gravely disquieted by recent events. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has stated that the actions of the Government have identified it in the public mind with colonial rule. As far as I can judge, that is only partly true, Sir, of small minority sections, not unimportant because of that. Under the Rendel Constitution, which we are working, the Chief Secretary, a Colonial Office official, is the central authority in respect of internal security. All information on internal security matters is channelled through him. He is the person whose duty it is to advise the Council of Ministers on matters of internal security. The final say in internal security is his and the Government's. Any major action taken by the Government in the field of internal security must necessarily be based on the information, the guidance and the co-operation of the Chief Secretary. Many arrests have been made not only of rioters and curfew breakers but also of persons under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, arrests which to some are reminiscent of the mass arrests in India and Burma before independence. It is true, Sir, that today we recognise that those arrests in India and Burma were arrests of nationalist forces. But let us remember that many of the persons recently arrested are believed to be ardently anti-colonial individuals. We have used British forces against our own citizens. Let us face frankly the fact that all this builds up to a picture which gives disquiet to some perfectly decent and loyal citizens of Singapore. It is the tragedy of the Rendel Constitution that those Malayans who seek in all sincerity to work it for the welfare of the people are often identified with colonialism. Sir, if the Colonial Office says to us that two and two makes four, we in Singapore must accept the correctness of that arithmetic. Let me say now, with no axe to grind, that the advice of Colonial Office officials I have often found to be sensible and right. If we try to show our independence by going contrary in every instance to every advice of colonial officials, then we create chaos for Singapore; and yet because the Government is believed to have followed the guidance and advice of colonial officials, it is damned, as I in my time was damned, as a running dog of the Colonial Office by certain sections of the population. That is the price of the Rendel Constitution - that decent Malayans seeking honestly to work it for the welfare of Singapore are suspected of being traitors to the people of Singapore. There are two ways, Sir, in which Government can seek to regain the confidence of those sections of the population; and let us remember this: though we may have a hundred with us, the shepherd who has a hundred sheep but has lost two goes out to seek for those two - they should not be discarded - and I say that the Government can regain the confidence of these minority sections which are gravely disturbed today in two ways: (1) By a renewed and vigorous drive on the merdeka road; and (2) By giving the maximum possible information of the clear and present danger of a Communist conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force. It is freely recognised, Sir, in every democratic country in the world that secrecy is sometimes necessary, but it is also true that secrecy and democracy do not generally go together. The Government has given no indication that Operation Liberation is at an end, nor has it stated that the present quiet is permanent peace and not a temporary lull. If the inference is that Government fears further trouble, that is all the more reason why this House and the people of Singapore should be taken into its fullest confidence. There are two other matters, Sir, arising out of this unhappy tragedy that has befallen Singapore on which I wish to touch. The first is concerning the arrest of the Member for Bukit Timah. I do not think it is proper at this stage for anyone in this House - nor perhaps would you permit it, certainly I would not permit myself - to indicate what I know or what I learned in London of the character and the views of this young man. But this I can say, Sir: I agree wholeheartedly with the Chief Minister that no citizen is immune from the process of law. When it comes to utilising the process of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance intended for use where there is evidence of an attempt to overthrow the Government by force, but such evidence it is not possible to produce in court - when this Ordinance is used against a representative of the people of Singapore, and one of the most prominent Opposition Members - that is a very grave act. This I know the Chief Minister is aware of. I also know that the Chief Minister will, if he can, seek to bring charges against this young man in a court of law. If he cannot, we have this solace in this House - that the Member for Bukit Timah has the right to appeal to three judges - but I would like to add my plea in respect of this case which must disturb many. I would like to ask the Chief Minister if these three judges confirm the detention: that a special secret sitting of this Assembly be called; and that the report of the judges be communicated to us so that we would be satisfied in our own minds. Sir, the other aspect of the tragedy which has befallen us is the widening rift between the English-speaking, the Malay-speaking and the Indian-speak- ing sections of the population on the one hand, and the Chinese-speaking Chinese on the other. It is utterly false to suggest that the Chinese youths are disloyal monsters. It is completely untrue to think of the Chinese-speaking Chinese as having their loyalty orientated towards Peking. I think, Sir, it is appropriate at this time that the people of Singapore - all of us - should face the facts and recognise the dangers of this facile but dangerous way of thought. For decades the colonial education policy in Singapore has been a very simple one. Education costs money, they say. If we are to give education to the children of transient immigrants, we must have income tax. Introduce income tax to educate the children of transient immigrants who may be here today and gone tomorrow? Nonsense! And anyway, education may give them ideas. What does a coolie want with education? So because clerks and tambies were needed for commercial houses, we had schools to produce only clerks and tambies. Missionary societies did valiant work in trying to fill part of the vacuum. The clerks and the tambies and the products of missionary schools learned something of English culture. The English cultural pattern which with its refinements of Greek philosophy and Roman jurisprudence became our main source of inspiration, involving our way of life. We who were educated in English schools tried to meet our problems with the techniques of English culture. We did not become English but we learned what was helpful in designing our way of life; and incidentally, Sir, we learned respect and loyalty to the Crown, faith in the rule of law, and a longing for democratic institutions. What of the others? The mass of Chinese had to fend for themselves. They either had no schooling and grew up in the gutter, or they had to find places in so-called schools run by Chinese merchants, many of whom donated generously but none of whom knew anything of education or running schools. The teachers were poorly paid. The products of those schools and those who never went to school know a little of Chinese history, the Chinese classics, the Chinese philosophy, and consequently their source of inspiration in meeting life's problems is the techinique of Chinese culture. They know little of the rule of law. They know little of parliamentary democracy or Commonwealth ideals of internationalism. When you say to me, Sir, be loyal to Singapore. I understand that means loyalty to the democratic way of life, constitutional progress, Commonwealth relationship. When you say to a Chinese-speaking Chinese, be loyal to Singapore, he thinks of the Chief Secretary, of the Governor, of the Colonial Office. He thinks of the decades of discrimination and exploitation. He wants to change this, and so do I.

Silence.

He has no access to Western literature and philosophy, so he seeks the technique for the change in Chinese literature and Chinese philosophy. He tries to adapt Chinese techniques to his problems as we, who are English-educated, try to adapt English concepts of parliamentary democracy to our problems. These are the sources of our inspiration. Those are the sources of his. We are not English, nor is he Communist. My father, Sir, anglicized our name by putting an "r" in it. I sing Auld Lang Syne. Does that make me a Scot?

No!

Says the jealous Englishman! The Chinese-speaking Chinese, given a chance, is as loyal a Malayan as any Straits-born. It is true that Communists are seeking to utilise this cultural affinity to impose the Communist ideology. But it is not true that they have succeeded, and they will not succeed. The Chinese have equal rights as the rest of us in a constitution compatible with human dignity. Those who fear Peking's domination must surely have been heartened, Sir, by the advice of Premier Chou En-lai to our fellow citizens that they should give their undivided loyalty to Singapore for their own welfare, for the welfare of Singapore, and for the friendly relations that China seeks with its neighbours. I know the most memorable incident of my visit to China, Sir, was when Premier Chou En-lai was provoked to anger by my remark that the concept of dual nationality was a remnant of imperialist thinking, and the logical consequence of that concept was that Singapore with its 76 per cent Chinese is a colony of Peking. "Me," he said, Sir, in English, "an imperialist? I have fought imperialism for 30 years!" And through an interpreter he told me, "China has enough territory, China has enough population. We think colonialism is evil. We want no colonies. We want friends. If ever China tries to dominate Malaya, I hope you fight us." And turning back to me, he said in English, "That is not only for us but for the future and you tell the people of Singapore." Sir, I believe he was completely sincere when he said that China seeks no colonies, it wants friends. The people of Singapore should discard this idea of disloyal Chinese. We must get together with them and seek to work out with them a common approach to our common loyalty. We must try to understand the Chinese-speaking Chinese and I do ask them to try and understand us. We, the English-speaking section of the population, are not colonial stooges because we seek to follow the English pattern of approach in respect of the problem of merdeka. We are as sincere as they are. They must also realise that there are elements which seek every opportunity to damn the Government, and they have been working not only in schools but also amongst responsible adult Chinese. Just to give you one instance, Sir, I know how ardently, how sincerely my colleagues and I worked on the White Paper on Education. We tried with complete honesty to make up for the decades of disgraceful government neglect of the Chinese community. We insisted on full equality for them, irrespective of cost. It was a radical, I thought it was a magnificent, departure from the past. Instead of relief and appreciation from the Chinese community, we were told that we were trying to destroy Chinese culture. That horrible charge, Sir, is one that I will never forget. Till today I find it difficult to understand how the reasonable and practical Chinese people, after reading the White Paper, can truthfully say that it is discriminatory or seeks to destroy Chinese culture. Why the campaign of vilification against Government? The Chinese themselves do not understand how they have been pushed into believing the White Paper to be evil, into believing that it seeks to destroy Chinese education. Sir, I think it might be helpful if I were to explain a little of what I have learnt of the Stalin concept of the technique of revolution. Broadly speaking, Sir, Stalin believed that only the workers are capable of a successful revolution; also that the workers are normally ignorant and illiterate. Therefore they have to be politically educated to a revolutionary pitch. `The political education consists in constantly saying: "The present is bad. The Government is wrong." Whether the Government does right, or whether the Government does wrong, you must always say: "The Government is wrong, the Government is wrong, the Government is wrong", until you have aroused their anger to the pitch of violence. It seems that they conceive of the worker as being one who is like a sheep, unable to remember today the falsehood he was told last week, and they are like sheep which a noisy sheep-dog can stampede in one direction. This has been to some extent successful in the colony, but I am glad to note that today many Chinese are conscious that they have been gravely misled about Government's intentions in respect of Chinese education. That is a good start. To those who, because of their study of the Chinese technique of approach to freedom, are inclined to be friendly to Communism, I would like to say this, Sir: I spent two months in China. I had travelled very extensively and I was given very considerable facilities to meet and talk with innumerable officials throughout the length and breadth of China. I have seen Shanghai which was once a prosperous commercial city. I have discussed Communism in the context of Singapore with many, many leading Chinese Communists. Not one of them denied my thesis that in a territory where there is neither industry nor agriculture, nor mining nor fishery, in a territory which survives economically by virtue of the activity of capital, Communism would mean our economic death. In fact, Sir, I remember with pleasure that one leading Communist said to me, "Well, maybe in the freak economy of Singapore Communism is inappropriate." I would like to say for myself that I am more than ever convinced that those who seek to impose a Communist ideology on Singapore are, whether they know it or not, seeking to break our rice-bowl and to drive us starving into the sea. Those who think they can gain merdeka by following the Communist technique of violence have had a fulldress rehearsal warning in recent days of what would befall them. Violence is evil in itself, and in Singapore it is doubly evil, because in Singapore it is certain to fail and the people only will suffer tragedy and the misery. I would like, Sir, to appeal to all who may be disturbed or antagonistic by recent Government actions to recognise that the Government is seeking sincerely the welfare of the people. By its own act this Government has given clear notice that it will terminate its own life not later than nine months hence. That, Sir, is surely evidence of its sincerity? Let us all during these nine months cooperate together with the Government for Singapore's welfare. To those sitting on the fence, the antagonisms of the past one and a half years have caused enough damage, and merdeka will never come, and if it comes it will have no meaning unless we all learn to cooperate with each other and with Government. I ask all sections of the population to stop this traditional suspicion that seems inherent in certain quarters and to try for the next nine months a positive approach in full co-operation with Government; and I say, Sir, that in these nine months we can still learn how to live together as equal brothers, for the Chinese-speaking Chinese cannot rule Singapore against the will of the rest of us. Nor can we, who are so preponderantly representative in this House rule Singapore against the will of the Chinese-speaking Chinese. For our survival, Sir, we must learn to respect, to understand and to co-operate with each other. Let there be an end to this violence which threatens the very possibility of merdeka. Let us all remember that there is but one issue before us - Operation Merdeka! 11.09 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that within a year and a half of the life of this Labour Front Coalition Government, we are saddled with two major disastrous riots with its usual loss of human life, injury to hundreds of people, and inconvenience to the whole population of Singapore. This state of affairs has given Singapore a notoriety that is going to affect adversely the future of this island. The world at large is going to ask whether Singapore is really a happy place to live in, whether the people here observe law and order, and, most important still, whether it is a city safe enough for investment in its industry and other developments. In the beginning of this year, when Singapore was pressing for political advancement, questions affecting the internal security of this island figured prominently in the talks. Some leaders then were of the opinion that we needed no troops to defend this island. Even the suggestion by my Party about raising immediately a Singapore regiment was not well received. The past ten days found us asking for assistance in the matter of troops and policemen from the Federation, and indeed Singapore owes much to the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, for sending us the much needed aid so promptly. Without such help, this city could not have attained normalcy in such a short time, and this help must have saved Singapore from further loss of life and property. In Singapore, up to today, the material loss is estimated at a few hundred thousand dollars. Everywhere we hear expressions of hardship and suffering. The workers were prevented from going to work and therefore lost the earnings that should have been theirs. The students, especially the majority of them who are keen to learn, lost the opportunity to study during this critical period. I sympathise with those students in their final year, in fact, their final month of study in school before graduating. Over ten years of hard work has already been put in and if the results of this last examination were disappointing or if they were compelled to abandon their school careers, those who engineered this riot must take the blame. The ordinary and peace-loving citizens, by and large, must be praised for the manner in which they conducted themselves, keeping within and observing the laws of the country. Imagine the immense inconvenience experienced by such citizens. 20 hours out of 24 cooped up in their houses. What a horrible and intolerable bore it must have been to those families of eight to ten children, or even more, that live in cubicles. But the most important question to ask now is: Who caused all this trouble? On whose shoulders must the blame for all this loss of life and limb be placed? The blame must rest squarely on those who engineered this riot and civil disobedience. These are the enemies of the people. These are the cowards and dishonest politicians who made use of innocent and helpless young students and workers to serve their own ends. These are the people whose greed for power and selfishness of purpose go all out to incite violence when they know that they will not be the people who will suffer and get hurt. I am referring to the People's Action Party and its affiliates. The pseudo trade unionists, instead of assisting the workers to improve their conditions of work, seize on the gullibility of the workers and convert the trade unions into political front organisations. Here I must say that the majority of workers, the backbone of our industries and services, are good and law-abiding citizens who are eager to avoid trouble and earn an honest day's wages. They denounced violence and complained of their loss of earnings. In fact, many of them were quite at a loss as to how to raise money to pay for the needs of their families the next day. It was indeed a relief to all when normalcy was restored. The return of the majority of transport and other workers immediately after the curfew is a good pointer to this. As for the students, what do children between the ages of 11 and 15 know about politics? During my days, when I first attended a Chinese school and then an English school, it was on the lips of most Chinese parents that an English type of education taught the students to forget their parents. Chinese culture demands that children must honour their parents and respect their teachers. Today we hear of students ignoring their parents, going against them, and will not relent even when the parents beg them to comply with requests beneficial to the children themselves. In the classroom, instead of the teacher giving instructions, the students give orders. I ask, Sir, where is it shown that Chinese culture is being preserved? However, it must be said that such an attitude is exhibited by only a few so-called student leaders. I do not know about their advisers, but if they agree that it is wrong to honour their parents and respect their teachers, then they are also no more fit to be human beings. The majority of students are, by nature and tradition, keen to study. They know that they belong to families and that they have parents who not only are responsible for bringing them into this world, but are also responsible for feeding them, clothing them, educating them, and protecting them. However, acting in circumstances not within their control, these very young students are powerless. Intimidation and boycott go a long way to compel the majority of innocent and young students into toeing the line distasteful to their own conscience. Sir, I must speak up for this large group of young citizens. The blame cannot be placed on them. It must be placed on those who engineered the riot, who incited them, who prevented them from doing the right thing. We must consider their future. We must help them to become useful citizens. Where they have strayed against their will, let us create conditions for their quick return. The Government should see to it that their schools are opened at the shortest possible time, and that steps are taken to inculcate into young minds the differ- ence between right and wrong. True Chinese and other great cultures, which are, in fact, the most valuable assets for any man living in society, should be taught in all schools - Government, Government-aided, as well as private schools. If there is any difficulty in finding suitable lecturers, I can assure the Government that the Public Morals Committee will help. Although there had been rioting in many parts of Singapore and incidents totalled up to over a hundred, it must be pointed out that, apart from serious incidents involving arson and brutal manhandling of innocent citizens, many minor incidents were caused by hooligans and ignorant youths. This is an indication that support for lawlessness, was only confined to a very small minority. I understand that many people, numbering not less than a thousand, have been detained for breaking the curfew or rioting. In this connection, may I point out that many citizens did not understand that the curfew imposed was a house curfew? As a result, many thought that it would not be an offence to stay in their compounds or on the five-foot way so long as they did not venture on to the roads. Many other citizens, who happened to be on the scenes of incidents after the event, were unfortunate enough to be detained. I would like the Government to use its sense of justice and discretion so that the innocent may not be punished with the guilty. But what was the underlying cause of these disorders? I am afraid that Singapore politics is always gravely affected by the politics of our great neighbours. There is a need now to cultivate a real Malayan outlook and loyalty. No doubt many people have come from India, China, Ceylon or other countries. Let me say that China today is already a great nation, and so are India and Ceylon. These countries do not need the loyalties of their children overseas to make them great. In fact, Nehru, through the Commissioners of India, has in the past stated that the Indians who want to be citizens of Malaya must be loyal to this country. So it has been with Ceylon. The Prime Minister of China, Mr Chou En-lai, in a recent news release, has also stated that China does not accept membership for his Party from the overseas Chinese. He has urged that the Chinese living in Malaya should be loyal to Malaya and he has also stressed the importance of the Chinese people living here to live in harmony with the other races. People from many nations of the world, particularly from Europe, emigrate to America. They are Americans and are to the very last loyal to America. I remember that a Canadian Prime Minister was once asked whether he was first a Canadian and then French, which happened to be his race; and his reply was that he was Canadian first and Canadian last. These are examples that we can profitably follow. Let us cultivate a true Malayan outlook, a hundred per cent Malayan loyalty, and let us be Malayans first and Malayans last. If we can achieve this, and at the shortest possible time, then I believe that this will be the beginning of the end of our troubles and an era of co-operation, mutual respect and prosperity will follow. Turning to this question of the recent trouble again, we, the Liberal-Socialists, while giving our support to the Government in carrying out measures to maintain law and order in this instance, cannot help making a few observations on its faults. The year-and-a-half Labour Front Coalition Government cannot escape entirely from criticism. As I have said earlier, in this short period we have had two riots, and here I say emphatically that the present riot is due to the backfiring of the previous riot. The 1955 riot was claimed by the trouble-mongers at that time to be a victory. They had been encouraged by government action then, and now in a state of drunkenness, they have staged the second riot. I hope this is the last. 11.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing much that I have ever admired in this stand of the P.A.P., but there is only one thing that I admire, and that is their consistency in maintaining that whatever they have done is right and that whatever the misfortunes that Singapore has seen throughout the last 16 months since the election have been no concern of theirs and have not been started by them. Who then started the Hock Lee bus riots? They said, "Not we. It was the Government who started the riots by the use of force on the poor bus strikers." Who started the 300 strikes? They said, "Not the Middle Road group of unions nor the P.A.P." What they did was to get better living conditions for the workers and about 40,000 membership. But when challenged on the point that, by staging so many strikes, they were forcing factories to close down or curtail production, they demanded us to produce one single instance of such a thing happening. Of course, they never kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They all die a natural death so that the P.A.P. can prosper. Who again started the near riot at the Kallang airport? They denied they were responsible. But I was there. I stayed on to the end. That near riot never started until the mass of P.A.P. supporters and their friends came along to the airport terminal building. There they started chanting songs, shouting merdeka and trying to climb over the railings into the building. When they were prevented from doing so, stones were thrown. Of course, they said, "They were not our men. They were other people." Then again what about these strikes? What about the riots that we have had recently? Who was responsible? Can the P.A.P. and the Middle Road group disclaim responsibility for having incited and worked up the disorder, the challenge to Government, so that the riot could start? The Member for Sembawang, in seconding the motion moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, asked this morning, "What is subversion? What is subversion so long as we carry out our election pledges?" Surely the answer is that subversion is an attempt to overthrow the legally constituted government by any act whatever to undermine their authority or to challenge their right to do any act. That, to my mind, is subversion, but to their minds it is a perfectly natural constitutional struggle. What is constitutional about it? By constitutional struggle, other people understand it to mean fighting an election or bringing up an issue which can unseat the government and so start another election. Surely not by inciting disobedience or demanding all those who have been detained to be brought to trial?

Is that wrong?

No, it is not wrong. You can ask for anything. But you could not deny that the Government has the powers under these Ordinances to which you are objecting. On this occasion I notice that the Member for Tanjong Pagar was not and could not be very vehement about disclaiming responsibility for starting the riot. What he said was, like a good lawyer, "Prove it! We have got nothing to do with it." In his motion before the House he asks: "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." What further evidence and what further justification is necessary after what happened last week? His motion was filed on 24th October. I wonder whether he would have had the nerve to file a similar motion if it was after 26th October. Now that I have declared my stand, that I support the Government in its actions carried out under these three Ordinances, I do wish to bring another matter before the House. I spent the whole of last week - and I think many Members of the Assembly did the same - trying to find out for parents and wives where their sons and husbands and relatives were, and I am very grateful to the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary for so promptly acceding to my request to set up a central authority whereby anyone can ring up and find out where the missing persons are; but, to my mind, that alone is not enough. I understand about 500 people have been remanded in the civil prisons pending trial for rioting and breaking the curfew. The administration of justice, as I understand it today, will not be able to cope with this number of cases on top of the ordinary day-to-day work which they have in hand. I think it takes at least three months now to get a date fixed for a hearing before the court. Among these 500 odd people you will have to sort out the sheep from the goats. I am convinced, from the reports that have come to me, that quite a number of these people arrested for rioting and curfew breaking are innocent members of the public who happened to be near the scene of rioting when the police came. My experience is that the man who starts a riot and who is the real troublemaker never stays to take the consequences. He just bolts away and leaves the consequences to be faced by the people who happen to be there, either hawkers or just passers-by. I have one particular case in my mind. On the 26th of October, the first day of the trouble, a cyclist was coming out of Alexandra Road near the military hospital. Unfortunately he collided with another cyclist who was very anxious to get home before the curfew. He fell from his cycle and broke his head. He was picked up by a military ambulance and taken to the Alexandra hospital. Unfortunately for him, after treatment he was detained there till about seven o'clock and then sent to the General Hospital, by which time other rioters with broken heads were pouring in, and he was also detained. Fortunately, however, I have been able to produce evidence to the investigating officer and I have been told that he will be released as soon as he can leave the hospital. Now that is one case, but I am sure there are many cases like that. I would therefore urge Government to do something about these 500 odd people so that they can be brought to trial before the court or be discharged as soon as possible. I also suggest that, except for those against whom there is clear evidence, the bail of $5,000 fixed for such cases at the present moment should be reduced to $500, because it seems to me that it is impossible for these people to find such a large sum of money before they can be bailed out. I would also suggest that extra courts be constituted to deal with these cases and that more investigators should be appointed to go through these cases very quickly so that the innocent can be discharged. I am quite sure that there are many members of the Bar and members of the civil service who have experience on the Bench who would willingly volunteer to go through these cases and report to the Attorney-General which cases ought to be discharged or withdrawn against the accused persons. I hope Government sees my point. We have given Government our unstinted support when it was a question of maintaining law and order. On my part, I feel that the maintenance of law and order is above party politics, and I am very glad that my support has been justified by recent events, but I do urge Government to consider very sympathetically the 500 odd persons who are now locked up. 11.38 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar was good enough to indicate to me this morning that he was going to raise a point which he has made towards the end of his speech, that is, that he was concerned about the large number of persons who are on remand on charges arising out of the disturbances last week and who have not yet been brought to trial. He said, I think, at an early stage in his speech that it now takes about three months from the date of his arrest before an accused is brought to trial and he urged that the Government should do something about it. As I was saying, I am grateful to him for having indicated to me that he was going to raise this question, because in the short time which I have had, I have been able to obtain some particulars which I think will go some way towards setting his mind at rest on this particular point. Sir, I do not want to weary the House with details, but perhaps the hon. Member and other Members would like to know something of the numbers of persons who are at present awaiting trial. The figures which I am going to give the House are the figures as at 6 o'clock yesterday morning, and I think, for the purposes of what I am going to say, the persons awaiting trial can be divided into two categories. In the first category are persons charged with offences under the Penal Code, for the most part for the offence of rioting, and the other category consists of persons who are charged with the offence of curfew breaking. With regard to the number of persons charged in the courts and awaiting trial for offences under the Penal Code, that number as at yesterday morning was 326, of whom 290 were on charges of rioting. I cannot say how many are at present on remand, and with regard to these cases, I know that this figure is one which the hon. Member would like to have. But I am afraid that I cannot give him that figure now but I shall try to give it to him later on. But it is a fact that bail has been offered in all cases. So we have there, under the Penal Code in effect, persons awaiting trial - 326. With regard to the curfew breakers, the number against whom charges have been preferred is 1,034 and over half of those have already been dealt with by the courts. So we have then 326 under the Penal Code and just over 500 for curfew offences. Now I am coming really to what the hon. Member wants to know. Arrangements have been made for four courts to deal exclusively with these cases starting on Monday next, and I have given instructions this morning that priority is to be given to persons who are not on bail, in other words, to persons who are in custody. In the circumstances, I hope that what I have said will satisfy the Member for Paya Lebar and also, I think, the Member for Serangoon who expressed doubts and concern in this matter. I think the Member for Paya Lebar would also like to know - he was worried about persons being charged who should not have been charged, but I do not accept that at all and I say that with some confidence because over 1,172 persons who were picked up, so to speak, have been released. I hope, Sir, that what I have said will help the hon. Member concerned in the matter and will, as I say, satisfy him. 11.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the elected Government has of late been using a procedure which is even very much more advanced than what we have been accustomed to when the Colonial Office ruled us directly with the support of members of a political Party which has now ceased to exist. Citizens have been arrested and detained under the powers contained in the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and when the persons arrested were not born in this country, they have been banished even though they have family ties here. The Government's excuse has been that these persons had been engaging in subversive activities. Is the information at the disposal of the Government so secret as all that, that they should always want to act in secret rather than make use of the open judicial processes which are available to those who have nothing to hide? Sir, recently in the case of the arrest of a Chinese journalist on suspicion, with a view to banishment, on the charge that he had been engaged in subversive activities, the Chief Minister admitted at a Press interview that it was possible that the Police could have acted on false information. Sir, how long are we to tolerate this unhappy state of affairs? If `Government believes that those it has caused to be arrested have violated the law of this country, then it should make every effort to have them produced before the courts of law, so that the public may know why they have been arrested and they may have the benefit of a fair and open trial. Sir, if the Government states that I am wrong in what I believe, then let it show by its act that it has confidence in our judiciary and produce before our courts of law those it has arrested on a suspicion of having been engaged in subversive activities. It is only in this way that the fears of our citizens will be allayed and confidence in the Government restored. 11.46 a.m. The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary's Ministry (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education. Sir, to render any support to the original motion moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar would be to render support to the actions and further actions of lawless elements which have brought about a grave situation in Singapore, resulting in so chaotic and so frightening effects on the peaceful lives of the vast majority of the people. The reasons and justification for Government's action are not far to seek. They have been repeatedly told to the people in the past few weeks, and furthermore both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Education mentioned this in the Assembly yesterday and today. There is no doubt, Sir, that violence was the theme of the students and other organisations which started the riots and such acts were done in the name of ideals of democracy, human rights and the struggle for freedom. The policy of individual or mob violence, intimidation, throwing of stones at the Police and at innocent people, and setting fire to institutions is a bankrupt creed. It is the creed obviously of immature students and politicians and incompatible with the interests of the people as a whole. To think of violence and the insurrections of the early 18th and 19th centuries is entirely to misunderstand the present position in Singapore and of the world. It is unfortunate, Sir, that some of our people are being advised, directly or indirectly, to resort to insurrection and violence to achieve our freedom. In order to fight for freedom today, I think the non-violence technique is the only desirable technique in regard to internal conditions in Singapore. The thought that by using and rushing into some kind of sporadic action the people are speeding up the revolution in Singapore is very misleading. Violence can do nothing of that kind. Such a technique is only just hindering mankind's progress towards the peaceful attainment of independence. The growth of violence is a symptom that we have left the path of righteousness in our politics. The insurrectionary type of action is always the action of a small minority and a weak minority, which tries to capture power by some sudden action. We in Singapore are neither weak nor a small minority. We have a powerful organised movement for attaining political freedom, and to indulge in sporadic violent action is just to ignore and not to utilise this movement. It is, in fact, hindering its functioning. We have the will, which is a great weapon, in our hands, and we should use it to our best advantage. To think that we can do a great deal with a pair of nail scissors, as opposed to a big gun, is absurd. The students are being taught to defy the Police. Who compose this Police Force? Our own brethren. What is their duty? They are the guardians of the peace, security and well-being of their parents and their fellow citizens. The internal security of any country must depend on the understanding, moral support and active co-operation which the people of this country render to the Police. This must be so in Singapore too. The Police Force is there to ensure internal peace. Whatever government is in power - whether it is the Labour Front Coalition, the P.A.P., or the Liberal- Socialist - the Police act under the direction of that government. For what purpose should the youths of Singapore be taught to hate the Police? Is it to start a fight against our Police, a fight against our own fellow citizens, against our own well-being? Sir, I heartily endorse the remarks made by the Chief Minister when he commended the restrained actions of the Police Force during the time of emergency. Sir, there is also evidence that innocent workers and students were and are being incited to a very high pitch of violence by propaganda and by inflammatory speechs directed against the Government and its leaders who have devoted a fair portion of their working life and have given their all to the welfare of the people of Singapore. Sir, I venture to suggest that it is discourteous for any movement, designed to achieve political freedom by peaceful and constitutional means, to launch a series of propaganda campaigns against the Government and misrepresenting facts to achieve their own ends. They must fight clean and win the hearts and minds of the people by truthful propaganda. By truth and only by truth can we raise the dignity of our people in the eyes of the world. We may be able to fool some people sometimes by wild propaganda, but we will not be able to fool all the people all the time. Sir, I will quote an instance where the ideals of civil rights were put to the Members of this Assembly by the so-called Singapore Civil Rights Convention. This letter, which was addressed to me, reads: "Dear Sir, The Civil Rights Convention of major trade unions and other organisations in Singapore have reason to believe that the majority of votes of the Assembly in support of the recent arbitrary arrest of trade union and civic leaders and equally the dissolution of peaceful and constitutional organisations, does not reflect public opinion generally and the opinion of the great majority of your own electorate." Sir, I will not think this is upholding civil rights. This appeal was not directed to Members who voted against Government's motion of confidence at the last sitting of the Assembly. This appeal shows very clearly that freedom can be dangerous sometimes and how easily it can be abused to the detriment of the people. The secretary of this organisation, sitting down in his office, could easily say that I do not enjoy the confidence of the people. I, who am in very close touch with the people and who utilise my energies and place my services at the disposal of the people, must surely know better than the man who sits down and writes this letter. That in itself shows very clearly what civil rights these people have been championing. That is not championing civil rights, but it is one of those bogeys that have been directed against me. Sir, if a democratic decision of the Assembly can be interpreted in this way, I have no doubt that this Civil Rights Convention does not believe in itself. You can only have confidence in another person if you have confidence in yourself first. Sir, the Labour Front Coalition Government will continue the struggle to achieve political freedom from colonial rule through peaceful and constitutional means. We will not believe in a shortcut to freedom by violence. We shall continue to carry on the principle of non-violence and truth in our struggle which we believe is right and proper for peace, security and the well-being of our people. We shall continue our struggle for freedom from fear, intimidation and exploitation. 11.57 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with great interest yesterday to the speech in which the Member for Tanjong Pagar moved his motion - as indeed I read his speech on 4th October - and I felt, in what he said and in what I read, a note of genuine personal feeling, almost a sense of personal tragedy - which is not so far from being a public tragedy - because there is a consistency and solidarity in his actions which, regrettably, is based I think on an incomplete analysis of the circumstances in Singapore, an incomplete political analysis which leads to injudicious political acts. There is much in his speech which was very practical and very constructive. He stressed the need to avoid deep political cleavage, the need to unite public opinion and to win the hearts of the people for a socialist programme centred on the life of Singapore. But there is an incompleteness in his analysis, I think, which I can best illustrate by reading one or two extracts from what he said on 4th October. Here is one: "if they cannot get the men who are prepared to organise the masses on their side, then how are they going to get the masses on their side?" In other words, he says you have got to have the organisers in order to get the masses, and that seems to be basic to his political philosophy and basic to his political Party. Then earlier on the same day he said: "...take away all the supports, all the ground organisations that sustain the People's Action Party, and then you will have removed the sinews of the Party." Now the idea of the masses is one that I do not accept in Singapore. In a country like Russia in 1917 or China in 1947, a backward, tottering, ruined, collapsing country, you do have masses in the sense that the people have been reduced below their status of decent healthy human beings into a terrified and helpless mob. Countries in that state are not capable of democratic life and they have to be organised with a strong hand. You cannot make any pretence of democracy about it any more than Lenin made a pretence of democracy in organising Russia after the 1917 Revolution. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is not politically or socially or economically bankrupt. It has an enormous reservoir of political strength and political goodwill. It has the possibility of democracy. It has, in fact, considerable elements of democracy now existing; and in a democracy you do not have masses - you have individuals. You do not have a desire to be organised by young intellectuals. You do not have a need to be organised. In a democracy the people can organise themselves. They are not blinded, oppressed or terrified. They can make their own judgments. It is most dangerous to think in terms of the masses in Singapore. It is an intellectual error, the same error that Karl Marx made when he spoke of the "lumpen proletariat" - "lumpen" not meaning "lumped" but meaning "foolish", "shiftless", "purposeless", "loafer" proletariat. We have not, I think, a lumpen proletariat in Singapore. Our people are higher than that and they are capable of political life. The lumpen proletariat attitude is the attitude of a man standing up on high and looking down at the crowd beneath him, and there they are - the anonymous crowd of people - you cannot distinguish one from the other. Sometimes their faces are blank, sometimes they laugh, sometimes they shout - ah - ah - ah! But they are just the responsive instrument on which the intellectual plays. That is the point of view of the man looking down on the masses, but when you are down among the masses, it is not like that. You are an individual and you are surrounded by individuals, and to the man down below, it is individual freedom that counts. It is, I think, the most important thing in a man's life that he should be individually free. National freedom, merdeka - yes - but they are only a means towards individual freedom, which is the final objective, the full flowering and fruiting of the human personality, free from its chains and free from exploitation and oppression. And because we have this desire for personal freedom, we do not have amongst the people a desire to be organised. They are reluctant to be organised. You do not have in a healthy democracy a hundred per cent trade union membership. You do not have a hundred per cent vote for the head of the State. You do not have a hundred per cent of anything. You do not get people turning out to vote for the different Parties. You do not have all the voters turning out. You will think yourself lucky to get 70 or 80 per cent of them out. Because they do not want to be organised. It is only where you have a totalitarian country, a Communist or a Fascist country, that people are organised and bludgeoned and compelled to come out and give themselves a hundred per cent to an organisation. You do not need it in a democracy. You can get spontaneous organisation as the need arises. They have apparently a spontaneous organisation in Hungary against a government kept in power by foreign support. The people rose against it and organised, and, as far as I can gather from the reports, just rising up to say, "We do not want to be pushed around and organised. We want to do the things we like and disagree with each other when we want to."

You should ask American intelligence agents what they know about Hungary.

I thought I should be queried about Hungary, so I will take an example during the riots in Singapore. I have anticipated this interruption! I was away when the incident I am about to relate occurred. My house stands on a rather small road called Meyappa Chettiar Road. My family were all there, one evening during the riots, when an organised body of rioters marched down Meyappa Chettiar Road towards the vegetable farming area called Potong Pasir. The people on the sides of the road spontaneously organised themselves. A considerable number - I do not know how many but enough to fill the house apparently - came up to my house and the women and children were put up in the bedrooms and down below the men stood guard outside with their parangs and their sticks. They had not organised beforehand. They saw what seemed to them to be a danger coming along and they took refuge where they thought there was a good defensible position on top of a hill; and they got the women and children quickly upstairs and they stood by down below and they were ready to defend themselves if they had been attacked. That seems to me an example of free people moving into spontaneous organisation against other people who are not in spontaneous but in pre-arranged organisation. As the rioters went on - they did not, in fact, attack the area where these people had taken refuge (they were humble people and did not deserve attack, but they thought they were going to get it) - they came to the Bailey bridge, which was put up after the floods of 1954, and when the people on the other side of the river realised they were approaching, Mr Speaker, some of the farmers started beating their buckets and tin cans in the same way as they beat them when an eclipse is coming, and all over that valley of humble vegetable farmers the lights went out. That was all - just like that. I have described two different kinds of people. It was an extraordinary thing to see - little houses going out into darkness under the threat of the approaching rioters. Well, that was spontaneous organisation, and I set against this analysis of organising the masses the principle of human individuality, of human freedom and a society that seeks to liberate the individual, to set him free for the full development of his personality. That is an ideal but we have not got it yet in Singapore. We have a long way to go. We have only democracy in part. I remember in one speech the Member for Tanjong Pagar said that if you believe in democracy, you must believe in it absolutely. I agree in a sense but I do not think that it follows that you can immediately and always maintain all the machinery of democracy. It does not always operate. Open trial, free speech, free assembly, free publication - all the democratic rights which you can find listed in the political books - they are machinery and a very desirable machinery, but they do not always work. If you are going on a journey, it is usually a very good thing to have a motor-car and go in a motor-car. But a motor-car can break down; a motor-car can be misused and turned into a means of danger. If the motor-car will not work, then you had better abandon the motor-car and finish your journey on foot as long as you want to get on with your journey. In the same way, I am afraid sometimes the machinery of democracy, as generally accepted, does not always work and you may sometimes have to by-pass it and try and complete your journey and get to your objective - and your objective is personal freedom. Now where organised intimidation exists, Mr Speaker, some parts of the machine are definitely unworkable. The machinery of open trial is not an easy machine to operate. It never has been. Let me quote another example from what I am told is a very reliable source about the riots. I am going to conceal this slightly because I checked up before I decided to use this in my speech and I was asked not to mention it at all; but I am going to mention it and I am going to conceal it a little bit so that it will not be easy to put the finger on my informants. A Chinese-speaking Chinese looked out of his window and saw a gang of rioters starting to make a road-block, accumulating their bottles and their iron bars and getting themselves into position to try and trap a car. This Chinese was horrified. He spent some time trying to make up his mind whether to do anything, and finally he got to his telephone and telephoned to a friend to tell him about it. He said, "Will you, my friend, please telephone the police because I dare not? I fear these people should somehow get to know that I have given information about it. But I do not know who they are. They are just figures down the street-three or four storeys down below there. I can see them but I do not know who they are. I dare not tell the police that they are there." That was how the police got to know of it, through second or third - hand telephone calls before somebody was found brave enough to telephone the police. That is the degree of fear under which the people are operating in Singapore - under the threat of riots, intimidation, acid in your face and a bullet in your brain. If that seems to be perhaps a doubtful example because that was a time of great stress and fear, let me take one example of unwillingness to give evidence in a time of relative peace and quiet. Another Chinese took a child to the General Hospital for treatment. The Chinese doctor there was extremely uncivil and insisted on delivering a lecture on political theory instead of getting on and giving the child the treatment that it should have had. He was very uncivil to the person in charge of the child. But I heard of this; my blood did not quite boil but it simmered a bit. I managed to contact the original person to whom this had happened. I checked up and the reply was, "Yes, the story is correct." "Will you give me the time, the day, and, if you can, the name of the doctor, and as many other details as you can so that I can get some action taken?" But the reply was "No", and I worked for half an hour trying to convince this person that it was right and proper that the information should be given, so that the doctor could be told that he must do his duty as a doctor and not mix it up with political indoctrination. But I could not get permission to give that information and I could not get the details. That is the degree to which some people in Singapore are afraid to come forward and give evidence. Anybody who knows anything about it will be able to give you dozens and hundreds more examples of the same kind of thing, because there has been so much intimidation and people who have tried to do what they knew was right have so often to pay a bitter and terrible price. I hope that in this case we shall have the evidence and that some trials will be possible but we have to have that background in our minds of the fear of coming out and saying openly, "I saw this. I swear that this is true." This demand for open trials has been made again and again by the People's Action Party, but they had better check up because, if I may quote from experience of five years ago in rather similar circumstances, it is not always true that the person who has been detained wants an open trial. This sounds surprising, but I know this for a fact. In 1951, at the beginning of the first term of the schools, a large number of people were picked up by the Special Branch and detained under the Emergency Regulations. Amongst them were the President of the Singapore Teachers' Union, Mr P. V. Sharma, and the Secretary, Mr C. V. Devan Nair. The Union Committee, very rightly and properly, immediately called a general meeting which I attended; and the proposal was that the Union should unanimously demand an open trial for these two valued officers and that the Union should raise a large fighting fund and should employ Mr D. N. Pritt, Q.C., as the counsel for the defence. I was in sympathy with that, but I got up and made one point, and that was they had better check up first whether or not the two valued officers of the Union did, in fact, want an open trial, as the Union thought. The Union therefore elected a Committee of three - two others and myself - to go to Changi Prison and see these gentlemen and to find out whether they wanted an open trial or not. We went off. The police gave us every facility. We had a private room in which to see them - that was not a facility we should have been given; we should have had a policeman present, I believe, but I think by now the offence (if there was one) against the regulations is probably cold. I think we spent about 20 or 25 minutes arguing with them, and trying to convince them that an open trial was feasible and possible and right, that we could get a good lawyer to defend them and that we could find the money. But the answer was "No". Subsequently I had a letter from Mr Devan Nair, when he was removed to St. John's Island, saying that I had been spreading false rumours about him to the effect that he did not want an open trial. He said, "It is not that we do not want a trial. It is because we have no faith in any trial that we can get in Singapore." As far as I can recollect, that was the point. It was a difficult point to me because, as far as I could gather, he had no faith in any trial which could be given in Singapore. Therefore presumably he did not want any trial. It was with difficulty that we accepted this position because we felt that it put a stigma on the whole Union - that these two officers were not willing to take the justice of the courts of Singapore. In fact, the money which was raised had to be spent on cigarettes and biscuits and books and other things, because they would not have a lawyer, they did not want to go into the courts of Singapore. I am dropping this into the People's Action Party's mind because they may come up against the same sort o difficulty again. I do not say it will; it may not be so, but there it is, it is a matter on record. I have the file. I do not want to under-stress the dangers of by-passing any of the democratic safeguards which are parts of the democratic machinery - open trials and other matters of that sort -

Order. It does appear that the Minister will take some time. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.17 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying when we broke for our lunch that there were certain practical limitations on the machinery of democracy in Singapore and I spoke particularly of the difficulties over open trials, whether from those who will give evidence or from those who are going to be tried. I am most anxious that I should not in any way misrepresent Mr Sharma and Mr Devan Nair, particularly Mr Devan Nair, who now perhaps faces open trial again. I have not looked at the file in which I have all these records for some months. I used it to write a letter to Fajar of the University Socialist Club. I do not know whether they published it but I sent it to them explaining the facts I have given in this Assembly today. I think it might be right to add that my impression, when I saw Mr Sharma and Mr Devan Nair in Changi Prison, was that it was Mr Sharma who was opposed to the open trial and Mr Devan Nair seemed to me to have been willing to go to trial if his senior and Union President had not been unwilling. That is only an impression and I would not like to say anything more about it in case I did misrepresent in any way. I do not want also, Mr Speaker, my remarks about the difficulty of getting evidence to be taken as misrepresenting the people of Singapore. I have given examples of the reluctance to speak up and give evidence to lay bare things that were wrong but that is not the whole story. There are plenty of cases of people who do show great courage and willingness to face the burdens of citizenship and those people I am sure have been much encouraged and strengthened by the firm leadership of our Chief Minister and by the action of the Government. In the course of his speech, the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said that he and his Party had lived with the problem of winning people to democracy, of avoiding a political cleavage, for two years. Some of my colleagues and myself have lived with it for eight years since the founding of the Labour Party of Singapore -

It died a natural death.

We went into that Party as amateurs. We made mistakes and our political net included some rather odd fish. Many of them, I am happy to say here, as the Opposition has pointed out, died a natural death; others, I think, are moribund. I might illustrate the difference in our approach - what I regard as the fully democratic approach - and the rather less democratic approach of some sections of the People's Action Party by referring to the history of the Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous) who did beat Mr Devan Nair of the People's Action Party in open free elections in Farrer Park in 1955. I will say nothing of the methods by which he achieved that victory. Later in the same year, he tried to become President of the Labour Front. He failed and I will say nothing of the methods by which he tried to achieve that other victory which ended in defeat. He subsequently left the Labour Front and crossed to the Opposition and in ally on 4th October, he gave his voice in support of the People's Action Party motion - a most embarrassing moment. I am sure, for the People's Action Party and one which they will have some difficulty in living down. But I will give them courage that although it must have been embarrassing at the time, I am sure they need not fear that he will stay with them very long without his allegiance being transferred elsewhere on a convenient occasion. I would not have spent much time on the Member for Farrer Park except that he does illustrate so well the limitations on democracy in Singapore and the fact that, in spite of those limitations, democracy can work. We do have breakdowns; we do have errors; we slip and we stumble and we lose our way in the half-light but we do go forward. We do overcome the difficulties and as the Member for Tanjong Pagar pointed out, you do get a natural political death for those who are unsuited for a healthy political life. There was a time, Mr Speaker. Sir, when I personally hoped that the Member for Tanjong Pagar might have been one of a united social democratic labour movement in Singapore.

I was a true Democrat-Socialist.

There was an opportunity but the opportunity came to nothing. After no doubt careful thought and study, he did not feel able to make that unity and the result was that the Labour movement was split into three: the Labour Front influence, the People's Action Party influence and the Communist influence. The result of that was that there was a great deal more freedom of manoeuvre for the Communists. Now, I assume his reasons - I do not know his reasons but he can correct me if I am wrong - that he looked at the Socialist Party, the Labour Party, the Labour Front and he saw certain things that seemed to him somewhat comic. He saw some rather odd fish, as I have said. He saw a lack of the cadres and the ground organisations and the emotional appeals, and so forth -

Integrity!

- to which he gives the very highest value and I think that he undervalued the discrimination and the ability of the individual voter. He thought us ill-organised; he thought we lacked drive and dynamism and he thought that we lacked integrity. I think he still thinks those things about us to some extent. Probably we have more organisation that he gives us credit for. We have a membership of between 11,000 and 12,000 people who have joined the Party as individuals and not as a mass organised membership but we have never sought to organise the masses in the Communist method. We have sought individual support - people who can judge for themselves, think for themselves and decide for themselves. We do not want masses who are manipulated. I do not deny the value, Mr Speaker, of the masses approach in certain circumstances. If I had been in China in 1947 or in Russia in 1917, I should probably have given my support to Mao Tse-tung or to Lenin but I hope I should have had the courage to refuse my support to Stalin when he turned the system into an abominable tyranny. The point I am trying to arrive at, Mr Speaker, is that you have to take account of the realities of a particular situation. When the Greek classic law-giver and politician Solon was asked, "What is the best form of government?", his reply was. "For whom, at what time?". For Singapore at this time, I believe that the best form of government is democracy but I also believe that it is necessary to ensure the growth and strength of democracy by removing the weeds which seek to strangle it. I know that there is a danger in by-passing any of the machinery of democracy, of the safeguards which are established and recognised and proved in past experience: one of them is open trial which we have been discussing, but it is only a part of the machinery. The vital purpose of democracy is the freedom of the individual - the full growth of the human personality. Communism in Singapore would be a step backward, a step downward and a step away from our achievements and it would be social, economic and political suicide for us because we are beyond that stage and I hope that we shall never be driven back to it. I believe that the people of Singapore understand and accept the purpose of the Labour Front-Alliance Coalition Government. I believe that they share our faith in the individual. I believe that they share our conviction that the individual must be protected against conspiracy, intimidation, a life of fear and the threat of having his freedom taken from him. It is in that conviction, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I urge this House to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education. 2.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard many speeches today and some of them, to my astonishment, made no reference whatsoever to the original motion or to the amendment and so I am saying at the start that I support the amendment. I have frequently noticed, Sir, following the dull periods of plain legislating in this House especially the Committee stages of Bills, that whenever the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rises to his feet to move a motion or to speak in a debate, a hush falls over the House and hon. Members and the public gallery await expectantly the flow of controversial matter, the castigation of Government and the animadversions of whiteskins that one associates with all utterances of the hon. Member. Yesterday it was as I thought it would be: I think I could have forecast with reasonable accuracy at least 90 per cent of what he said but never, if I may say so, has the hon. Member to my ears sounded so unconvincing or so utterly biased. He was quick to bring references to Hungary and Poland into his speech because he could scarcely omit reference to these places as it was his intention later on in his speech to make a big play of Suez. The interpretation he gave of world affairs in his speech yesterday seemed to me to be only remotely connected with the motion but it certainly gave him an opportunity to sing a hymn of hate against the British. I assert - and I care not how much the elected Members on both sides of the House may laugh - that the British have very little to be ashamed of and much to be proud of in the history of the administration of this country and that it was achieved with blood and sweat and exploitation is, to my mind, a myth cooked up by the latter-day have-nots and their representatives. The hon. Member took a great deal of time in recapitulating the series of events which led up to the riots. In this, he told us nothing. He did however tell us that the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) was actually waiting to be picked up by the Police which also does not surprise me not, as he suggested, because the Hon. the Chief Minister in his earlier speech had revealed his intention in this respect but probably because he was guilty.

Come, come. Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. You have just heard the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Minister for Communications and Works mention this morning the possibility of the Member for Bukit Timah being brought forward for open trial and I think that it is absolutely unheard of for a Member of this Assembly to say beforehand if he thinks the Member for Bukit Timah is guilty.

Probably.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if that was said in court, Mr Sutherland will serve a term for contempt.

The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order 31 (2) which reads: "Reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice, in such a way as might in the opinion of the Speaker or Chairman prejudice the interests of parties thereto." I do agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that that matter is, in fact, sub judice and I think the hon. Member ought to withdraw his remarks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I gladly withdraw in the light of your interpretation of the remarks I made. The Member for Tanjong Pagar did say that the Member for Bukit Timah was expecting to be picked up and I only gave my interpretation of why he thought so. The Member for Tanjong Pagar asked yesterday, "Who began the trouble and who is responsible for it?" Surely, these questions were rhetorical. In his lecture to the Government Benches, he suggested that the Labour Front Coalition had cooked its goose because they used British troops to help the Police in, suppressing the riots. In so doing, according to him, they have lost the support of the masses. It would be interesting to know just how many people in Singapore, excluding the British, gave thanks at the time of these riots for the very presence of these troops. His remarks about the General Officer Commanding Singapore Base District and the Commissioner of Police seemed to me to be scarcely adult; that their pictures appeared in the Press showing them as directing operations may have annoyed the hon. Member but the Commissioner of Police happens to be British and surely no one would be so naive as to except that anyone else would direct the disposition of Police forces in an emergency except him. This is after all still a British colony. That the forces the Government have been fighting against were subversive in every sense of the word will be denied by no one except the 2� per cent representation of the population of the People's Action Party plus the few thousand misguided school children - God pity them - who have been led astray by people who are scarcely capable of thinking straight. If only those opposing the Government would pause to take stock of the damage they are doing in retarding progress in this country towards self-government, they might have another think about it. Of course, I realise that this is the sort of thing one might expect to come from a person in my position. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has told the House that he would have me deported if he had the chance. I think, in this respect, he may be slipping because I remember about a year ago in this House, he indicated that when he was in power, he, as a gracious host, would welcome the British.

Only to polite guests.

But what about the Chief Minister of the Federation in this respect? Is he too a colonial stooge? Whether he is or is not, it is plain that the events of the past two weeks can have done little to help the cause of self- government or to bring the Federation and Singapore together and the realisation of this fact has been implicit in some of the Tunku's recent utterances. Well, Sir, I often think that the bitterness the Member for Tanjong Pagar lets flow into his speeches particularly in regard to all questions relating to expatriates and colonialism stems from a conviction that he is the intellectual superior of most businessmen in Singapore and indeed I think he is right but this I submit does not excuse what appears to me at times to be arrogance, arrogance that leads to such statements as he made on the 4th of October last when he said, "... little men in Singapore do not understand that we are a part of a world revolution." But in what context did he utter these words? He had been speaking of Russia! Russia, whose action in Eastern Europe makes the Franco-British Suez affair sound like a school picnic. Anyway, the hon. Member said, "The whole international Communist and anti-Communist position has changed with the hydrogen bomb." Frankly, I did not follow the relevance of that statement but if he meant that the Communist plan for world domination has been halted because the West is at least as far ahead in the knowledge of nuclear fission as the Russians, he is right. He then went on to speak of the whole Communist philosophy having radically changed following de-Stalinisation, peaceful co-operation and peaceful competition. As I see it, the hon. Member's refusal throughout the life of this Assembly to join in what he and his Party call "anti-Communist hysteria" was just as great before de-Stalinisation but how utterly ludicrous and laughable are these words of the hon. Member that I have just read in view of the events in Poland and Hungary. I suppose the P.A.P. will deny that those who rose in revolt against their Communist masters -

Were nationalists.

- were not the people, the masses, that the P.A.P. are always talking about. What a shock it must have been to Communist supporters to have heard that the insurgents in Budapest appealed to the British Legation there to inform the world of the justice of their struggle! To my mind, Sir, the terrible thing about the speech the Member for Tanjong Pagar made yesterday is that although his motion is a condemnation of Government's arrest of sundry persons under sundry Ordinances, he was able to say nothing to refute the charges of - shall I say, if I may coin a phrase - "un-trade unionism" levelled against the backbone of his Party, the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union and could only complain because the employers had also instituted their private purges following the shining example of the Government. Tacitly too, he seems to approve of school children who have no business whatsoever to be mixed up in politics, being the spark that sets off the big blaze. But, Sir, the one good thing coming out of this debate, to my mind, is that it has revealed that the extreme Left is beginning to squeal. Although the elected Members of the Government claim full responsibility for their actions, attempts are still being made to blame it on the British. 2.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment to the original motion introduced by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. What arguments has the Member for Tanjong Pagar advanced to support his motion? Absolutely nothing! The sum total of what he has said in favour of the motion is, "What evidence have you got for arresting the persons under the Ordinance? If you have any evidence, let us have it." Have not hon. Members and members of the public been supplied with ample evidence? The Member for Tanjong Pagar spent an hour in a tirade against Sir Anthony Eden and his policy regarding the Suez Canal. That course, as Mr Sutherland has rightly said, was expected. He also venomously attacked the British. I fail to see the analogy. Singapore is our country, the country we love and the country in which we hope to die. In the cemeteries of Singapore are the graves of my forefathers and the forefathers of many of the elected Members on both sides of this House. We are all striving for a merdeka in which Singapore can be governed, as I said in my broadcast the other night, by true and loyal Singaporeans and not by those whose thoughts and loyalties lie elsewhere. We want a Singapore where all races can live in peace and harmony. Although, as yet, we do not have a fully-constituted self-government, the decision to clamp down on the pernicious groups existing in our midst was made by the elected Ministers who take full responsibility for their action. The Hon. the Chief Minister and the Minister for Education gave hon. Members and members of the public as full an account as was possible of the background and it is hardly necessary for me to recapitulate the history and causations of those disturbing days but I would ask Members especially those who feel inclined to criticise Government or who are a little undecided as to which way to vote to please give a little serious thought to certain aspects. On the 4th of October and again yesterday morning, the Hon. the Chief Minister stated that through certain channels of information, Government was aware of vicious Communist activities in what were, on the face, innocent organisations. The Hon. the Chief Minister and his colleagues made it clear that Government would not leave a stone unturned in its endeavour to deal a crushing blow to this menace so that the people in Singapore in all walks of life and, in particular, the workers, the farmers, the hawkers and students - yes, the students who, in refusing to be indoctrinated with the pernicious ideologies, were living in constant fear and intimidation - so that they may go about their normal chores and studies free and unfettered as every citizen is entitled to. The intended campaign of Government was welcomed by hon. Members of this House who have the interest of Singapore at heart except, of course, the P.A.P. What did a Member of this Party say - a Member who is conspicuous by his absence - to what the Hon. the Chief Minister said the other day? He said: "A hundred Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hocks cannot destroy this movement. A hundred Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hocks will only find their political graves in trying to destroy this invincible movement for freedom and democratic rights for the people of this country This movement is an organic part of the mighty current of the Asian revolution. The greatest military powers of the Western world have had to retreat before this invincible current, and the Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hock is nothing in comparison." And he wound up with this: "One last warning to the Chief Minister. My Party (that is, the P.A.P.) and my Union (that is, the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union) have already said that we will use all possible peaceful and constitutional means to protest against Government's action, and the Chief Minister has assured a delegation from my Union that he will afford every facility for peaceful and constitutional protest. I shall hold the Chief Minister to his promise for his own good." When the Police raided his Union overturning and burning of motor cars belonging to innocent citizens. Were these ingredients a constitutional and peaceful process which the hon. Member painting of the President of the Middle Schools' Union were found in the schools. Workers' Union) in Bukit Timah (his constituency), what did they find? The place was housed by a large number of so-called unionists and students who put up a strong resistance. Home-made weapons, bottles containing acid and documents were seized - documents which clearly indicated a programme of violence and destruction. The same were found in other premises from which the rioters were receiving their directives and among the rioters were students who (that is, the Singapore Factory and Shop took part in the throwing of bottles, spoke of? Large victory banners and a were these not all in readiness to proclaim the victory which they with the support of pseudo-unionists and thugs were confident in gaining? There was plenty of evidence to justify Government's action. Hon. Members must have faith in the elected Government and if their faith is misplaced, no single person on this side of the House will wish to remain a single day longer nor will he be able to face the decent citizens of Singapore with a free conscience.

I thought we have lost it a long time ago.

Government was aware that there were destructive forces who were working behind the apparent calm and it was imperative for action to be taken then and there and not later. From the outcome of events which followed Government's action, it is abundantly evident that Government acted in good time and in this Government had the full and able co-operation of the military, the Police and the Federation. Hon. Members can well imagine the complete chaos, the wanton destruction of life and property which would have ensued if these pernicious groups had their way and compare that with the little that was suffered when we had the full co-operation of the forces. Victory over constituted authority would have been celebrated with a procession of these banners no doubt accompanied with jubilant singing and dancing. The "invincible power" would flourish and Members of this Assembly - at least, those who would be in the seats then - would probably be expected to do the yanko dance when the Speaker enters with a hammer and sickle in his hands, instead of standing with respect and dignity as we do now. I urge all hon. Members of this House to support the amendment and thus support the Government in its "Operation Liberation". "Operation Liberation" is an integral part of what the Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) referred to as "Operation Merdeka". We all know why we failed in the constitutional talks but with the successful "Operation Liberation" (or substantially so), we will be in a position to attain merdeka from a position of strength and I agree that there is no better man capable of doing that than our present Chief Minister and then, when we have attained merdeka, to have Singapore governed, as I have said, by true and loyal Singaporeans and not by pseudo-politicians or politicians who seek power or politicians who have a nest-egg elsewhere to which they can fly when Singapore is in a bad way. 1 support the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I urge all Members of this House to do the same. 3.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday after I heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar deliver his speech in which he moved his motion, the first impression that struck me was that the Governor of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, had come to life in Singapore again, and he had washed his hands and said, "No, I had nothing to do with the Israelites. I had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ." The unusual speech delivered by the most learned and brilliant orator in this country, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, appeared to me to be so weak, so vague and so confused that I could not understand his intentions. What does he stand for and what is his policy? Today I have discovered that he is prepared to make use of the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) - I think he is a member of the P.A.P. by now - to defend his Party's policy. I admit that after I heard the Member for Sembawang speak, I felt that it was P.A.P., stuff, but definitely not the kind delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, as I am not in the Government, I do not have -

What a shame!

- the opportunity of getting information from the Special Branch. Therefore, I cannot say whether those arrested and those dissolved organisations are subversive or not. I am also not a member of the P.A.P., and I have no connection with those arrested and those dissolved organisations. Therefore, I cannot definitely say whether they are subversive or whether they are not undesirable organisations. But one thing is very clear in my mind, and that is that all the troubles that we have are very closely connected with the P.A.P. and with the mover of the original motion. The Member for Tanjong Pagar can lie to anybody, but he cannot lie to me, Sir. He can say, "No, the P.A.P. has no connection with the student movement. The P.A.P. has never used the students for its political campaigns." Let me remind the Member for Tanjong Pagar - if he can recall as far back as the year 1954 - of the time when the new Bedok settlement suffered from floods. Then, the leader of the P.A.P. led five lorry loads of Chinese school students to the new Bedok settlement to start relief work, to distribute sweets - genuine sweets - and sweet words too, after the Chinese Chamber of Commerce had joined with the Social Welfare Department in spending more than $100,000 on flood relief. That was the first time that I realised how clever the P.A.P. are in their planning and tactics to make use of Chinese students. If the P.A.P. are not supported by the Chinese school students, I wonder whether they can still claim that the P.A.P. is the only Party in Singapore that stands alone today. If the hon. Member were honest when he answered the statement made by the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, condemning any politician who tries to make use of students as a political criminal, then, by now, I hope that all Members in this House, as well as the people of Singapore, can clearly understand and point out who are the political criminals. As the Member for Tanjong Pagar was the adviser to the dissolved Chinese Middle Schools' Students' Union, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether I am at liberty to ask him a few questions. Did he give any advice other than from the legal point of view? Can he tell us, "No, I was only an honorary legal adviser. I only give advice to the Union from the legal point of view."? Can we believe that, Sir? Can we believe that such a dynamic and powerful and influential political leader just gave only legal advice to the Union? I believe the hon. Member has the ability and thinks it even his duty to advise the Union other than from the legal point of view. Further, as he claims to be the leader of Singapore, did he ever tell the truth to the Chinese school students that this country lives only on entrepot trade, especially as we have little chance to merge with the Federation of Malaya? Then, did he consider it advisable to encourage the Chinese school students to believe that the Communist system must be introduced into this country? Did he advise the Chinese school students that, although every Chinese in Singapore is entitled to express his admiration for new China, loyalty to Singapore must come first? Did he tell the students that we cannot afford to create unnecessary class hatred, one indication of which is that the students always charge the Chinese Chamber of Commerce as being capitalists? Therefore, down with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce! Class hatred is so rooted in the students' minds. What capitalists are there existing in Singapore? To me, the many millionaires that we have here are not all capitalists but just professional gamblers. What can these "capitalists" invest in this country? Most of our capitalists rely on telephones to conduct their business. Sometimes I think, if our telephone system goes out of order for just one day, many millionaires will be bankrupt! Also, did the Member for Tanjong Pagar say that the short-cut towards merdeka for this country can never be achieved by a violent revolution? We have heard the hon. Member always professing to follow the Nehru line. The Nehru line shows us that we can achieve independence by peaceful evolution. Did he also make clear to the Chinese school students that he himself and the P.A.P. are not only strongly against colonialism but also strongly against Communism? I wish the hon. Member can give me an answer to these questions. I understand that yesterday, when the Member for Tanjong Pagar moved his motion, he never touched on it but referred to international affairs: Hungary and the Suez Canal. I was very interested when he mentioned the Suez Canal, especially when he put this question - I think twice - to the Minister for Communications and Works, "What is your stand on the Suez Canal?" Now I want to ask the hon. Member himself, "What stand do you take? As an Asian, as a believer in the Asian / African Conference spirit, what will your Party give as aid to President Nasser of Egypt? Why can you not call your colleague, Mr Jamit Singh, to start a water-front strike in moral support of President Nasser? Why do you not make a statement expressing your feelings on the Suez Canal issue? Why do you not also make a statement to express your feelings when thousands of Russian tanks rolled towards Budapest and you claim that you are for liberation and the crushing down of counter-revolutionaries? What is the P.A.P. stand on that?" Sir, despite my strong support of the Government action against subversion, I feel that it is my duty to make certain criticisms. The Government, it seems to me, cannot fully understand the masses, especially the Chinese-speaking masses. Sir, the Government cannot understand that the Chinese-speaking population in Singapore are more sensitive than any other race in Singapore. They have long been regarded as second-class citizens, especially where their education policy is concerned. Therefore, on account of this, the Chinese school students do not feel that they are treated equally with other students in Singapore. The total number of Chinese students registered in the colony is more than 200,000. The number of Chinese middle school students is slightly over 10,000, but they believe that their movement represents the whole Singapore student movement. When Chinese school students leave school, they are faced with problems ahead. There is a well-known proverb amongst Chinese school students that "Graduation means disappointment". When they leave school, it is very difficult for them to find jobs. Their certificates are not recognised and their future is not secure. Their citizenship status is not on an equal footing with other races. As a result of all these factors, many of the Chinese-speaking population suffer from an inferiority complex. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the Chinese-speaking masses, and try to understand them, especially since we have not achieved full national status and bearing in mind the forceful attraction exerted from the Chinese mainland. By tradition and culture, it is quite difficult to expect all Chinese-speaking people to express their genuine loyalty to Singapore. The second point that I wish to criticise is that, since the Government took action on 18th September, they have done very little to inform the public of what they have done. Instead, they have a very strong organised movement which is going all out to do damage and to mislead the masses, especially the lower income group. Therefore public opinion towards this issue has become divided and the Government seems to have taken no steps to prevent it. I am sure that all of us could have foreseen the trouble coming but what measures has the Government taken to prevent it? Anyhow, the damage has been done. However, I venture to suggest a few points to Government. Since the Hon. the Chief Minister has promised and named a date for merdeka, why do we not immediately revive the All-Party Merdeka Committee and sign a joint truce not to fight one another or play party politics any more, so that we can be united into a solid body towards independence? Why can we not face facts? Today, the Hon. the Chief Minister addresses the Hon. the Chief Secretary as "my dear colleague Bill", but I wonder whether the Chief Secretary will sit next to Mr Lennox-Boyd next spring? Why should we not try hard to have peace during this transitional period of a few months only? In this particular case, I wish to give a few reminders to the P.A.P. Why should they shout so loud to demand that the Government must resign and have an immediate general election? For what? For the Member for Tanjong Pagar's ambitions as a Prime Minister? Has he done anything good for the independence movement? I also wish to mention the Press. The Press in Singapore, I am sure, must have a double duty. They must report truly and honestly what they hear and what they see. They also have the responsibility of educating our people. Public opinion, as has been clearly shown, is much divided between the two groups - the non-English-speaking and the non-Chinese-speaking - and I wish to remind the English Press, when reporting, to consider at the same time that they print over 100,000 copies of their papers and to remember that there are also hundreds of thousands of readers of Chinese newspapers who are reading their views. We cannot deny the fact that the vernacular papers, from time to time, contradict the English papers. We must find out why. What creates that? If these different cultural groups cannot fully understand and respect one another mutually, there will be trouble in the future. As a Chinese, it is my fervent duty to speak as a Chinese, because the problems facing us today are so closely connected with the Chinese. I wish to tell the Chinese in Singapore that we must recognise one very clear fact: if we want to achieve independence, we must merge with the Federation of Malaya, and if we merge with the Federation of Malaya, our population will be just slightly over 50 per cent of the total. Therefore, we must learn how to understand and to co-operate with our brother races, the Malays, Indians, etc. We cannot always bear ourselves up traditionally, culturally or historically if we are too closely connected with the mainland of China and we may, unintentionally but emotionally, try to "chinanise" everything in this country, where many other races are living together especially concerning political beliefs. China is now practising Communism and we cannot say that, because we are Chinese and China practises Communism, we should therefore bring Communist China's formula and pattern of living into this country. It will be very wrong and it will slow down our progress towards independence. I remember that the Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) mentioned the arrest of the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) and he suggested that this House should be informed of the findings of the trial of the Member for Bukit Timah. I take this opportunity to say that, no matter how much I disagree with the Member for Bukit Timah, at least, he is sincere and honest in his beliefs - unlike the person who is now washing his hands of the Middle Road Group. I wish to point out to the Member for Tanjong Pagar that, since he has informed this House that the Member for Bukit Timah is going to learn to master the English and Malay languages, it will be very amusing to think that when - I do not know when - the Member for Bukit Timah has mastered them, it will then be the right time for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to get in to learn Chinese! Those are their political differences. As a result of the 13 deaths and over a hundred injured due to the riots, I realise for the first time now how cold-blooded are our politicians. One of my friends told me that, from the look of things at present, it would appear that the Labour Front is ready to cash a cheque but the P.A.P. wants a post-dated cheque. I was asked for my opinion as to who is right and who is wrong. I say that no matter whether the Labour Front wants to cash the cheque now or whether the P.A.P. is prepared to accept a post-dated cheque, they both must make sure that the money is good, that is, good in the interests of the people of this country. 3.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I promised support to the present Government till the next merdeka talks but that promise was not unconditional. We reserved our right to criticise the Government if it errs. Also, if any Minister misuses his power and shows too much favouritism, it is our right in the public interest to bring it before this Assembly. Sir, I will start on the question of curfew first. Not only do I wish to criticise but just to request the Government that, perchance such a situation arises, to avoid the hardships which had been unnecessarily imposed on the public. The Government is bound to preserve law and order but by taking action in that way it will cause hardships which will create a lot of dissatisfaction and bitterness in the minds of the masses. I will give you, Sir, some instances. Sir, curfew was imposed in order to keep away members of the public from going about the roads to create mischief but, Sir, where is the harm if any man sits down in his verandah with his family? It is surprising that he is ordered to get in! Representations have been made to me from my own constituency and they say, "The Ministers have got air-conditioned offices and beautiful bungalows. It is very easy to talk to the public from there and to ask the public to excuse them for the hardships. But what about us who stay in shop houses and cubicles without ventilation?" In my constituency, the people were commanded to close even their windows. A group of thirty or forty workers living together were asked to close their windows. What do you expect their feelings to be? Yes, the Police might say that missiles might be thrown from those windows. The proper thing to do is that such mischief makers should be watched and arrested but not everybody should be asked to close their doors and windows. Certainly not! I will mention one or two cases in which innocent people have been arrested. A coffee-shop proprietor opened his door to let a customer go out. Both he and the customer were arrested. This is surely stupid.

Curfew!

Persons returning from work were also arrested. Certainly the Police can use discretion. There were many such people who were innocent and they have unnecessarily suffered hardship. I believe that they were only bailed out for $5,000 by their friends. Now, Sir, I will quote another instance of what happened to me personally. After the long curfew from 3 p.m. on Saturday it was announced publicly through the radio that the curfew would be lifted from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Sunday morning to allow the people to do their shopping. I was going at 8.35 a.m. from Stamford Road to Orchard Road and I saw a stream of cars being stopped at the Orchard Road Circus. When my turn came, a British Tommy asked me, "Where is your pass?" I said, "There is no curfew between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m." He then said curtly, "No, there is a curfew on. You must have a pass. Go back." All the cars turned back and I had to travel two to three miles, more to reach home! Sir, why this inefficiency? I do not understand how the Hon. the Chief Secretary who has been administering the Government all along should have found such negligence in his Ministry. That should be avoided if - God forbid - such an occasion arises. The funniest part was that I had to send someone to a Police station to get me a pass because a British Tommy or a Gurkha did not know that Assemblymen do not require passes. The Police officer said, "Oh, no passes are allowed to Assemblymen or otherwise." That was on the 29th at the Orchard Road Police Station at 9.30 a.m. I saw a Police circular dated the 28th that Assemblymen are not required to have passes. However, this was the confused state of affairs. Sir, it was very amusing to hear non-Chinese Ministers during the curfew period talking about Chinese education and culture. I think the best people to speak about Chinese culture are Chinese Ministers. I will be very much annoyed if a non-Indian talks about my culture with a little knowledge. He has no business at all to do so. Sir, I have the greatest respect for my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) for his intelligence and for his study of politics for attaining freedom for this country - a non-Communist and democratic Malaya. I have a high respect for him because during the last year and a half, I have found him never to be personal even when he is attacked. Sir, personal differences should be forgotten when dealing with national interests. We have a brilliant orator in the person of our former Chief Minister whose absence was so much missed by the public. The galleries were empty. "Romeo" was away. I am glad that the galleries are now full. The former Chief Minister confessed his failure this morning. The Member for Tanjong Pagar and he are both brilliant men but I have said before that they lack practical experience in politics. To win merdeka, tactics have to be adopted though the principles should not be sacrificed or compromised. Tactics which are most suitable should be adopted to achieve our aim. A great man like Gandhi took 30 years to perfect his weapon of non-violence. There were riots and troubles. He advised his people to stop this violence and ultimately he succeeded. As I said, Sir, tactics are very necessary. Now, can you win merdeka by violence? You have got the example of Cyprus before you. The British rifle there is to see things resume their way. Take also British Guiana. The Leftist Party tried to run things in a leftist way and the constitution was suspended. Take another example, the Suez position. Britain is defying 62 nations. That is a fact. Then, how can you achieve merdeka - by violence? Certainly not! What will be the result? Our people will be shot and damage will be done to our own properties for which we will have to pay. I say that there should be a complete negation of violence, Then, Sir, is the United Kingdom Government going to give us merdeka on a silver tray if we do not go their way? I have said that it is almost impossible to get from the Conservative Government any freedom unless we go their way. One thing is definite: violence should be counted out. The second way is by constitutional means and peaceful methods. You can see books and books in India to show you how freedom can be achieved. They are worth reading. My advice is to take a leaf from these pages and follow the same constitutional means of those countries which have achieved freedom. Sir, students who are below the voting age should devote their time to their studies and, at the same time, to keep their eyes open as to what is happening in this country without giving any allegiance to any Party but my advice to those students who are of voting age and who will be our future leaders is that they should take every possible interest in politics and to study for their own sake and for the sake of their country. In every country, the movement has started through the students. It is also our duty to give them proper advice to follow the proper constitutional methods. Sir, I firmly believe that the United Kingdom is not going to give up this strategic island of Singapore very easily because she has her interest in white Australia, New Zealand, Hongkong and other places. She is not going to hand over her power to some other alien country or its followers. My advice to our people is that if we want to achieve merdeka, we must show our loyalty to Singapore and not to any alien power; we must eschew foreign or alien influence and drop their symbols. Sir, I am not a Communist but, at the same time, I am not an anti-Communist. England has recognised Communist Russia and Communist China. What is good for the gander is good for the goose! I say that while not being against or for, we must protect our own interest. The Bandung Conference introduced the principle of Panchsheela, that is, co-existence which means that while following your own politics and your own way of life, you can still remain friendly with other countries. Sir, my personal advice to my good friend the Hon. the Chief Minister is not to delay, for a single moment, the opening of the merdeka talks. During the last fifteen months there have been two serious riots and discontent. The former Chief Minister said this morning that he does not want the colonial rule. In other words, it is now a colonial rule and nobody can deny that it is not because after all the Government is run with three ex-officio Members and four Nominated Members. It is not the elected Government which is running the Government. Yes, there are elected Members but they are running the Government with the help of the ex-officio Members and Nominated Members. Therefore, my advice is to open the merdeka talks immediately. Of course, the United Kingdom will try to delay this. Certainly, any country would like to do this if it has power in its hands but you can force her hands. If we cannot, let us have an election so that any one Party with a majority can come into power. I do not mind which Party may be in power. Sir, finally, I would like to say that there has been a lot of destruction during the riots but who suffers and pays for it? I would advise the people of Singapore to refrain from violence. If anything is destroyed, we pay for it and the United Kingdom does not pay for it. No one pays except us and that will harm us. 3.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) analysed the present position of politics in Singapore. He analysed for our benefit that there are three camps existing today: first, the Colonial camp; second, the Communist camp; and third, the Nationalist camp. When I challenged him across the Floor to announce to which camp he belonged, he said, "Nationalist, of course." Sir, I did not have any doubts as to his nationalistic leanings up to the time these riots started. I always believed in his sincerity to work for the national interest of Singapore but when these riots started and when I saw his statements in the Press, I started having doubts as to whether he was really sincere or whether he was sitting on the fence. Sir, the first statement that he issued as reported in the Press on 27th October reads: "A serious crisis has arisen as a result of the inept handling of the situation by the Labour Front Coalition Government. Instead of heeding the warning signs of unrest and tension and taking steps to ease the situation, the Labour Front Coalition Government has made the situation worse by its recent actions." Sir, the next statement that he issued was reported in the Press, I believe, on the 30th October, which reads: "In the eyes of the people, the incidents that have occurred during the past four days have done more harm to the Labour Front Coalition Government than what the P.A.P. could say or do." "The Labour Front Government's handling of the situation was inept and the action that the Labour Front Government was taking made the situation worse!" According to him, Sir, and his Party, I suppose the best action that the Labour Front Government should have taken which would have made the situation better was to surrender to the rioters and to arsonists, to let them have their way and to let mob violence rule Singapore. That would have been, Sir, a good Government according to him. Then, he goes on to say: "Meanwhile, the P.A.P. appeals to the people of Singapore to be calm and steady." The P.A.P. with its sinews and ground organisations incited and started the riots and then they went on to appeal to the people to be calm and steady. Sir, up to that moment. I had no doubts of the sincerity of the Member for Tanjong Pagar but since these statements when it was the duty of every Member of the Assembly to go out to the people to talk to them and to pacify the passions that had been aroused as a result of some of the active leaders of the Labour Front unions inciting them to violence - sorry, Sir, I meant the P.A.P. unions -

They have not got any unions.

Thank God for that! Not that type of unions! Sir, as a result of some of the leaders of the P.A.P. making speeches and inciting to violence, it was the duty, Sir, of the Secretary-General of the P.A.P., instead of issuing statements calling on the Government to resign and leaving the situation to take care of itself and letting mob violence rule Singapore, to go out to the people, to speak to them, to pacify them and to make them understand. But has he done so? Where was he during those times? Even the Chinese students in the Chinese High School on the night before they were dispersed when the first signs of violence started said, "We are waiting for the coming of Mr Lee Kuan Yew." But Mr Lee Kuan Yew was nowhere to be found.

In Cameron Highlands!

Sir, looking at these statements and the claim the hon. Member makes that he is a Nationalist, cart anyone say that these statements were in the national interest of Singapore? Yesterday, he said that there are three camps and he urged that to achieve merdeka, we should play one camp against the other: the colonials against the Communists. Sir, I cannot believe that he is so naive as not to see the dangers that such a situation may create. He is not a political child, Sir, and I am sure that when he said that, it is not that he was not aware of the dangers that might be created. What will happen, Sir, if we achieve merdeka with the Communists as our allies? Will we get a true merdeka? Will we get a merdeka that will benefit the people? Will it be a merdeka, in fact? It will just be an apology for a merdeka. It may be from the frying pan into the fire. Sir, when we strive for merdeka, we must choose our allies very carefully and we must see that we march to merdeka on our own strength and not on the strength of doubtful allies as advocated by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, I appeal to him to do a bit of heart-searching and not to sit on the fence. If he is a true Nationalist, he should work for the national interest. He said that his Party and his ground organisations filled the vacuum which was created since 1948 up to the time of the present Rendel Constitution. To what purpose have they filled this vacuum? He has himself confessed that they have built up organisations and that they have the men to talk to the masses and organise them. Sir, is that an acceptance of the fact that the P.A.P. has been involved in all these disturbances? I ask him that question, Sir. If he is a true Nationalist, he should work for the Nationalist cause but not for a cause that will make merdeka a farce. We live, as the Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) has pointed out, on trade and on the activity of capital and if we get merdeka, we should not do anything that would jeopardise our position as a trading centre. We have no basic economy of our own. The Member for Tanjong Pagar knows it very well and admits that fact. And yet, if these activities are carried on, I am sure that when we get merdeka, we may have all our people starving. Sir, the riots and the curfew have created a lot of difficulties and discontent and we have heard the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) giving us examples of the difficulties experienced by innocent people who technically broke the law by coming out during the curfew hours. Sir, perhaps some of these difficulties and some of the arrests of innocent people were due to our not having been organised to deal with such situations. Perhaps they were due to our inexperience in handling such situations. It is possible, Sir, that the P.A.P. may make us well experienced in this before we get our merdeka. We have had two examples, Sir, during the last year and a half or so. Perhaps then, we may be more experienced in handling such affairs. But the fact, Sir, is that there has been physical damage which has not been very great - few buildings burnt, some traffic lights broken, a number of cars burnt, and so on. Then there has been damage in other respects. Many people who were labourers have been deprived of their earnings because they could not go to work during the curfew hours. Shopkeepers had to close and lose trade, Hawkers could not go out for three or four days because of the curfew. Farmers could not market their produce and so had to go on what meagre savings they had and the housewives and the general public had to pay more for their food for the few days that the disturbances lasted. This, Sir, is the tangible damage. Shipping suffered, the workings of this great port suffered and trade suffered. This, Sir, is visible damage but, Sir, the amount of invisible damage that has been done is that we have lost prestige as a trading centre and we have lost the confidence of those who trade with us and those who might have come and set up industries here to give employment to our people. That loss of confidence is a damage that cannot be easily repaired. We were hoping that we would be able to invite and to entice foreign capital to come here to set up industries so that our increasing population might get employment but, Sir, with all these disturbances - two riots: one of them a full-fledged affair - in the short space of a year and a half, I ask you whether that is the way to get the confidence of foreign capital. I am afraid, Sir, that if this sort of thing goes on, we are not going to get any foreign capital to come here and who will be the sufferers then? The sufferers will be our own people. Let them open their eyes and see the truth. Sir, I appeal to the people of Singapore not to let their passions run wild but to work constructively and solidly and not to listen to the poisonous rumours that have been purposely spread by some of the subversive elements so that we can march towards the goal of merdeka in peace and harmony and when we achieve merdeka, we can achieve it with the minimum difficulties arising from the change of one form of government for another or the change from colonialism to an independent government. Sir, in the transitional stage, there is bound to be some upset but if we approach this problem peacefully, I am sure that we can achieve it with the minimum of upsets. 4.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how many times have we heard the words: "It must not happen again." Everyone in Singapore is getting fed up with this except, of course, the People's Action Party. Events of the past few weeks have proved beyond all doubt that riot is a sport of the People's Action Party. Just because they have lost a match very badly and just because they have lost a few of their rough and tough players, they are now trying to introduce a motion to amend the rules of the game to suit their purpose. In the interest and wellbeing of the country and for the sake of good order as well as to keep the game clean, it is the duty of every hon. Member of this House to support the amendment to the motion. 4.02 p.m. The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Minister for Education. Sir, I would like this House to know what I experienced on the evening during the expiration of the time when the school students were ordered to leave the two schools. I happened to be in Geylang that evening and I saw a crowd attacking public transport which carried people of all races. On Thursday evening I was at Bukit Timah Road and I saw a big crowd. I heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) say in this House, "What did the Police do on that evening to allow the crowd to gather?" He should remember that the crowd which was gathering at Bukit Timah consisted of parents of those students in the schools. They were there to collect their children to take them out of danger. Sir, I would like to know the persons who were responsible for the riots. Sir, who were responsible for advising the people to start a riot? Are these people in this House, Sir? They have destroyed everything they could find in their way and yet they were not satisfied with that. They started spreading malicious rumours to the Malays that the Chinese were going to attack them. Sir, the Government took action and appealed to the members of the Malay community and we managed to stop them from doing anything by telling them not to believe in the malicious rumours that were being spread. I can tell this House that on the morning of Saturday, a number of Malay community leaders went up to where there were hundreds of Malays who were supposed to attack the Chinese, to calm them down. The Malays were told that whatever rumours they had heard were malicious rumours. They then realised the truth and they responded to the call of the Government to side and support the Government in restoring peace on this colonial island. Had it not been for the efforts of some of the Malay leaders, I think Singapore would still be in a mess today. My Party and I fully supported the action of the Government in detaining those who were supposed to be carrying out subversive activities in this country. The Police have papers and documents to prove that those who are being detained were responsible for the riots. Sir, I fully support the amended motion moved by the Minister for Education. 4.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a month ago the People's Action Party tabled a motion which was roundly defeated by almost all sections of this House. The Liberal-Socialists supported the Government amendment on the basis that the preservation of law and order was a paramount obligation, that the internal security of this island must be firmly upheld, not merely as a principle of our Party policy but rather as one of national importance, and that it was time for Members of the Assembly to declare on which side of the Communist fence they stood. In these last weeks we have seen the security of the State threatened, and constituted law and order seriously undermined by subversive criminals who have not hesitated to use the weapons of violence and of ugly pernicious rumour and also the craven cover of young students and children, who knew not where they were being led. And now we have before us a motion which the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) must regret having tabled, however eloquently he may try to hide his confusion. I say "confusion" because a month ago the hon. Member used these words in this House: "I agree with the hon. Gentlemen opposite that if any act is done to overthrow the Government by force, that act must be suppressed." If he had meant what he said sincerely, he should have had the honesty to withdraw this motion and not to have attempted to defend it. What I say to the hon. Members opposite is this: If you had failed to warn the nation of our impending danger a month ago, it would have been evidence of your incapacity to govern. If you had only taken half- measures to combat the dangers when they broke loose ten days ago, having learned the uselessness of half-measures employed last year, you would have betrayed your country and the trust placed in you as a Government. But because you have had the courage and good sense to act firmly and decisively to quell a rebellion which could have assumed alarming proportions, you have the assurance of renewed support of the Liberal-Socialists. Indeed, you could expect no less from us. A national emergency demands national-mindedness when both Government and Opposition Members must rally to the national interests above party politics. Unless we in this House can learn to do this, democratic government on this island will never prosper. Having reiterated our support of the action taken by the Government - action which it would have been criminal not to have taken knowing what they knew - let me say this: In all insurrections of this kind, the innocent or, if not the innocent, the foolish are liable to suffer to some extent with the guilty. It may be the student who got mixed up in a rebellion for the fun of the thing because he was too young to realise into what dangers and with what unscrupulousness he was being led and it is evident he is still being led. It may be the young trade union member who was forced to join a certain group or lose his job and therefore followed the crowd because he dared not do otherwise. It may be the foolish or ignorant citizen who committed the stupidity of breaking the curfew just because he wanted to see what was going on. I would ask the Government to exercise the greatest care to see that the people who can learn from their mistakes are separated from those who were the real plotters and schemers who engineered the riots. Sir, the hon. Members opposite have restored order and rid us, for the time being at least, of the forces of destruction. But they have scotched the snake, not killed it. They have not cleansed the Augean stables but only opened the doors wide so that the people may know the truth. Ahead lies the task of construction. Ahead lies the vital problem of finding and encouraging the right kind of leadership in our Chinese schools, remembering that young people respond quickly to leadership and new forms of inspiration. Ahead lies the task of convincing every section of the Chinese community that all political Parties are pledged to the preservation of Chinese culture within a Malayan framework. Equally, the trade union member must be made to realise that the arrests of the past weeks have been forced upon the Government in order to safeguard the proper development of the trade union movement and not to destroy it. The Liberal-Socialists believe in the need for that development just as much as the hon. Members opposite. And finally the man in the street must be brought to understand that the law is intended to protect and not to persecute him. Unless the Government tackles these problems of construction with the same vigour and the same sense of urgency as was applied to the recent riots, we shall be in danger of their recurrence and Singapore will soon lose its status as one of the greatest free trading centres of the world. The Liberal-Socialist Party will watch with extreme anxiety how these problems are tackled. The Hon. the Chief Minister has called for an "Operation Liberation". That operation must be one of co-operation because only with the willing and active support of all the right-minded people of this country - and they are in the vast majority - will we be rid of the evils which beset us. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the leader of my Party and my colleagues have said all that has to be said as regards the attitude of our Party. In that case, I think there is no need for me to repeat it but there are one or two things that I would like to touch on in the speech by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). Yesterday afternoon, I heard him say that the Farmers' Association held eight meetings. During the recent troublous week, several farmers in my constituency asked me what all those meetings were for. I admitted that I knew nothing about the meetings but I told them that I guessed that the Association might be trying to help them get more land, to which some of them said, "No, no!" One of them even spat. That is not all but it all goes to show that the meetings were not meetings of the farmers but of a handful of officials who were themselves not farmers. The Member for Tanjong Pagar also said that the Middle Road Group knew that they were going to be arrested. Was that not a guilty conscience? If not, did they consider that their stocks of sticks, bottles of acid, crowbars and what not, were enough to beat the Police away? And yet, they are trying to create an impression that they are as innocent as the babies or as pious as the saints and that they are being persecuted. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion of the Minister for Education, 4.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, I listened very attentively for nearly an hour to the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). It is a speech of contradictions. First of all, he tried to distort facts and blamed the Government for the riots. His delivery, Sir, lacked conviction and I began to wonder what prompted him to cut such a ridiculous figure. Then he got on his hobby horse and repeated what he has said in this Assembly many, many times: his idea on how Communism can be defeated. He said that by our action we have taken the bull by the horns and he wished us well. Well! Well! Well! What an admirable speech. The hon. Member deliberately distorted facts when he said that the arrests of the leaders of the Middle Road Group took place shortly after the outbreak of the riots on the evening of 25th October. He said that these arrests were carried out in the early morning of 26th October and thus making it appear that the Government had already planned these arrests. This, Sir, is a grave distortion of facts. The Police took this action in the early morning of the 27th October, after they were satisfied that the Middle Road Group was actively connected with the riots, I gave an account yesterday of ,the raids and arrests made on the premises of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union and I need not repeat it here. I would like to stress, however, that this `action had brought about a significant change in the riot situation. There was an immediate subsidence of trouble. In my statement yesterday, Sir, I gave an account of the events which took place prior to the riot incidents beginning 25th October. It was clear to all of us where the responsibility lies and yet the Member for Tanjong Pagar indulged in wilful perversion of facts -

Order. I cannot allow expressions of that nature to be passed about a Member of this Assembly.

I withdraw that, Sir. And yet, the Member for Tanjong Pagar by a clever distortion of facts -

Order. That is not any better.

And yet, the Member for Tanjong Pagar by a distortion of facts tried to accuse the Government of being the fuse. The Government's action was made necessary and I have already explained why it was necessary. Each time we acted, we acted to meet a situation created by the Middle Road Group. By their actions, they stand condemned both here in Singapore and elsewhere. The hon. Member said that the Government lost the propaganda battle from the 10th to the 24th October. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. In fact, it was because peaceful meetings and the signature campaign were having no marked effect that the Middle Road Group had to change their tactics. They changed the character of their meetings and adopted inflammatory, rabble-rousing speeches. Our records prove this, Sir. They fomented positive action by the misguided students, hence the visits by hundreds of workers to the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng School on the 20th and 24th October and the resulting pickets and intimidation of other middle schools from the 22nd October. The failure of constitutional meetings and parliamentary language forced the Middle Road Group to a more positive phase of struggle. It was because the same pattern of events as happened during the Hock Lee riots in 1955 was taking shape that the Government had to take action to clear the two schools of stay-in students. Sir, the hon. Member said that if the speeches made by the Middle Road Group were seditious, we should prosecute. This is a dangerous over-simplification. What is inflammatory at a mass meeting may not be found to be seditious in the calm of the courts weeks later. Whether or not prosecution follows, the Government must take immediate action to prevent further mischief. And this is what we did by the arrests. Twice now we have learned the hard way how quickly inflammatory speeches can produce riots, death and injury whether or not they are seditious. The hon. Member said that this Government admitted that it did not have internal security in its control. This Government has made no such admission. In fact, I pointed out very clearly last month that internal security is in the control of the Council of Ministers in which the elected Ministers have a majority of 6 to 3. I repeat what I have said so often: this Government takes full responsibility for what we have done, The only limit to our control of internal security is in the Governor's reserve powers of over-ruling us and, of course, in the strength of the security forces at our disposal. The appointment, Sir, of Mr M. P. D. Nair as Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary is intended to bring internal security closer to the elected Ministers. The Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) touched on the Protected Places Ordinance vis-a-vis the Naval Base. I agree, Sir, I dislike any Member of this Assembly being denied access to his constituents but I dislike too the suggestion that the action taken by the Naval Base authorities arose from the Protected Places Ordinance. As far as I am aware, Sir, it was taken simply in exercise of the common right of any authority to exclude strangers from its premises. And was it in all the circumstances of widespread riot and curfew so unreasonable that the Naval Base authorities should refuse admittance at this time to one who had openly associated himself with the Middle Road Group who had instigated the disturbances? I suggest that the hon. Member should blame his friends in Middle Road who created an atmosphere of tension which the Naval Base authorities had to take into account. The Member for Tanjong Pagar draws attention to the action taken by certain employers against their employees. I must accept the danger that certain employers may take advantage of the Government's action to victimise genuine trade union leaders. Indeed I have already stated publicly that employers must beware of just this mischief. In my statement yesterday, Sir, I called on all employers to take note that trade unionism is here to stay and that any attempt to smother it, any attempt to exploit the workers, will give fertile ground for subversive elements to thrive. I would ask all workers of Singapore who are being victimised to report to the Labour Department so that we can investigate into their complaints and render all possible assistance. But, Sir, I hold no brief for spurious trade union leaders who do not genuinely seek the welfare of the workers but seek to exploit them for their own selfish ends. The hon. Member quoted certain instances to support his point. I have with me, Sir, a report of the Labour Department, and I quote: "Tay Koh Yat. The Transport Employees' Union was formed in October 1955 by the Trades Union Congress and not by the Company."

Worse for the T.U.C.!

It goes on to read: "The Singapore Bus Workers Union Agreement with the management in December, 1955 stated there would be no lightning strikes, By their strike action on Friday 26th October, the workers violated this Agreement. There are no 2-hour shifts in the Company. The Reserve Unit is on an 8- hour and not 4-hour shift, due to the continued absence of certain employees - for reasons best known to themselves. The Yew Lee Cheong Tin Factory. The allegation was untrue. There have been no dismissals. The Hume Industries. Three employees who absented themselves for four working days without reason, have thereunder terminated their services and have been so informed. The Malayan Textiles. One tester and one oiler have been dismissed arising out of their activities in the recent unrest. The management did not move from prepared positions." Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar described the use of British troops as having a poisonous effect on the population. I wonder how many of the ordinary people of Singapore would have accepted that description when they first saw British troops manning road blocks on the morning of the 26th October after a night of constant mob violence or during the days and nights that followed? No, Sir, we were grateful that prompt help came in our hour of need to ensure that the situation could not get out of hand just as we are grateful to our friends in the Federation for sending us Police reinforcements. Of course, Sir, Britain now has the military power in Singapore. Apart from our splendid Police Force and a few local forces, we have no military forces. We are dependent for help in time of need on our friends. But this Government does not for one moment admit that that denies us political power nor will it deter us from pressing for full internal self-government when we meet the Secretary of State early next year. The British troops were there to help our Police Force to protect life and property. With their help in providing road blocks and reconnaissance, the Police Force was left free to operate against rioters, arsonists and subversive elements - an operation which they conducted with great credit. I remember, Sir, that on the debate on the Governor's Address the Member for Tanjong Pagar ridiculed the Government for wanting to raise a Singapore Battalion. On the one hand, our attempt to raise a Battalion of our own is ridiculed while on the other hand when we have to depend on British troops to guard life and property in our time of need is again ridiculed. I really find it difficult to understand the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, the hon. Member tells us that we shall get no concessions from the British Government.

I said you will.

You said, "We shall not."

Small ones.

Oh, we shall see! We certainly will not, Sir, if we follow the advice of the hon. Member to try and wrest the rifle barrel out of British hands. I believe the British Government is less likely to yield to threats and violence than to claims that are based on right and on our maturity to govern ourselves, which we have in good measure. The hon. Member says that he is determined to wreck the present colonial system as quickly as possible. That is not our way. We are not out to wreck anything. We seek to build on the foundations laid, to change and adapt the present system to our needs and to self-government. We seek to construct, not destroy and to build a better Singapore with merdeka, not to destroy it. Sir, the fight against colonialism cannot be separated from the fight against subversive elements. In fact, to win the one, we must also win the other. The stronger we are internally, the stronger will be our case in the next constitutional talks. How long are we to hold our hand and allow this conspiracy of subversion to carry on unchecked? To have done so would have been to try to build up the house of merdeka while allowing the termite swarms to grow unchecked and to permit them to keep eating away at the foundations of the house. Sir, the vile rumour spread by the Middle Road Group that the Government's action is aimed at the Chinese-speaking population is just another example of the extent to which this Group was prepared to go in their acts of subversion. In taking action against this Group, the Government is not attacking the rights of trade unionists, or farmers, or teachers, or Chinese education, or the Chinese-speaking population. We are liberating them from a vile form of political exploitation and to protect their interests. Sir, while we are on the road to merdeka, it is wrong to divide the population into the various races and to sub-divide the races into the various languages spoken. It is time we stop talking this. To me, to my Party and to this Government, there is only one kind of people and one kind of loyalty - Malayans with a common loyalty to Malaya. Sir, the new constitution which we are all looking forward to will give citizenship rights to all those who were not born in Singapore and I hope that when these rights are won for them, full advantage will be taken. The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) said that in the case of "Operation Liberation" one must also have "Operation Co-operation". You will recollect in my statement yesterday that I called on each and every one in Singapore to co-operate with the Government in our "Operation Liberation" so that we can all work together for a better, for a happier Singapore, free from subversion. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speeches that have been made on this amendment to my motion can be divided into two categories: electioneering and non-electioneering speeches. I congratulate Mr Francis Thomas, Mr Sutherland and the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) for not having gone electioneering. Two of them do not have to bother with elections. Of course, Members on the Government side, with the exception of one, were not in a position to electioneer. They took the -

Bull by the horns.

- bull by the horns. Yes, the bull can be more fierce and more dangerous than they thought, and they might find it necessary to bring the rifle barrel out again. But I was cheered to watch the subjective strengthening of attitudes. At the time when the merdeka talks broke down, there were 13 of us in London. Never in my life had I felt more sick and tired of seeing weak need and wobbly characters. When it came to a moment of crisis and a decision had to be taken, all were in a flutter: "What will happen now? What will happen to the jobs? What will happen to my seat? What will happen to me?" And not what will happen to Singapore! Well, for better or for worse, that phase is over and I think the coming year till next August will see a further settling of the positions. There are two ways of looking at the matters we have been debating. One is the short-term view, the other is the long-term view. In the short-term view, we have been arguing about: "Who was responsible? Why were they arrested? Who caused the riots? Did they cause the riots and then they were arrested, or were the riots conveniently engineered for their arrests?" We can go on arguing and the Government will, like Dr Goebbels, keep on repeating: "They caused the riots and therefore we nabbed them. We imposed the curfew and the riots subsided." It proves nothing. If the Government can prove its case, let us have a public enquiry, let us have evidence laid before some judicial tribunal and let the allegations be proved. But I knew and all my Middle Road Group of friends knew that they were in for a big purge. That purge started on the 18th of September. If there were no riots on the 24th and 25th October, perhaps they would not have been arrested on the 27th, But there would have been some other issues. It was inevitable. It was coming and they knew it. It was not "guilty conscience". They knew they were in for a purge. They made the Government pay a price, and that price is the long-term view. For the time being, they are snuffed out, punctured -

Thirteen deaths!

Yes, we all do not like riots, but this was one which I knew, and I am convinced, was not in any way sought or engineered by any subversive group. This was a situation which was created because of the Government's determination to carry out a purge. And in the last resort, it was the rifle barrel that settled it. As long as that is the situation the Government can make all kinds of silly mistakes but the ring will still be held and all will not yet be lost. Sir, it is not so easy either for the British, the Communist or the Nationalist to foretell what lies ahead. It is like the song that goes: "What will I be when I grow up? Will I be handsome, will I be rich?" And the refrain is: "The future's not ours to see." If we want to know what is going to happen in the future, we must know what are the forces at work. And having decided our position, we then try and work these forces in our favour. We heard a magnificent lecture this morning on spontaneous organisations from the Minister for Communications and Works. No doubt, that is the way the Labour Front works. I can assure him that spontaneous organisation will lead to spontaneous exit in the next elections.

August 1957.

August 1957. Sir, in the long-term view, whether we survive or we go under - perhaps it is outside our control - will depend upon whether Indonesia survives as a democracy or whether the P.K.I. will take over Indonesia and make it Communist. These are international forces beyond our control but as long as the international position is held and the rifle barrel is here in the hands of the British, we have got the set positions which I have been trying to explain. The British has the rifle barrel, then you have got the Communists and the Nationalists. I agree with the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) that the Nationalists are in the majority but the reason why they are ineffective is that they are unorganised and perhaps because they believe in spontaneous organisation.

Because they are sitting on the fence.

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are those who believe that this situation can be resolved by dynamism of personal leadership and the individual voices in the wilderness can transform the situation, I do not share those beliefs, If we want to make this country survive on a democratic basis, then we have got to organise the masses and the people on our side. It is not a question of the P.A.P. coming into power or the Liberal-Socialists winning the elections or the Labour Front winning the elections. It is a question of which particular cause is advanced. The Communists are not interested in who is going to be the President of the Republic of Malaya or who is going to be the Commissar. They are interested in advancing their cause and anybody, whether he is Communist, non-Communist or anti-Communist, who helps to advance their cause is used. That is what we must learn.

And he calls us stooges!

If anybody wants to advance the cause of an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya, then we should bring him into the camp.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a premonition that this happy state of affairs where the rifle barrel is securely pointed at those who might want to liquidate us might not be there for very long. What is this revolution in Malaya? Let me read this: "The Revolution in Malaya. People usually think of a revolution as an armed uprising against the existing Government. The great classic revolutions in history have been of this type - the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. I think, however, the use of armed force is not always an essential part of a revolution. Indeed, certain types of uprising where armed forces are deployed hardly deserve the name of revolutions. In certain South American states, for instance, armed revolutions are regular occurrences, Admiral De-Soto with the backing of the Marines and the Navy takes over from General Santiago. The General then retires to a neighbouring state and lives there happily ever after. The rules of the game lay down that ex-Presidents should not be hounded to death but should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their previous enterprise. With foresight, all ruling Presidents observe the rules of the game. This sort of thing used to take place regularly in our neighbouring state of Siam until Phibul Songgram, the present Premier, put an end to it. But the sort of revolution that matters is one in which everybody is affected. People's lives are changed irrevocably; some for the better, others for the worse. This kind at revolution is not brought about by soldiers or generals. This revolution results from historical, social, political and economic forces which bring about such rapid changes in a country that the way in which each person lives and thinks is profoundly affected. It is in this sense that we speak of the "Industrial Revolution" in Europe and it is in this sense that we speak of the revolution in Malaya."-

Order. Will the hon. Member identify that pamphlet? I did not hear him identify it.

This is the organ of the Malayan Forum in London called Suara Merdeka, and this is an article which is headed The Revolution in Malaya. It analyses for students what the revolution is all about and I think hon. Members in this House would do well to subscribe to this magazine and read it. Let me read just one more passage from this analysis: "In Malaya, we have seen the failure of the armed revolution staged by the Malayan Communist Party. We must at a later stage examine the causes of the failure of the M.C.P. rebellion. As things stand today, it appears to most people that it is the constitutional struggle that will win independence to Malaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman's Government came to London this year to negotiate with the British Government the transfer of power from Britain to an elected Malayan Government. The negotiations succeeded. How and why did this happen? Is there a catch to it? Or is it the result of some sudden and long overdue visitation of providence upon the tender conscience of the British Government? These are questions worth pondering. Our answer is that it is none of these things. Our answer is that this - for is - happy state of affairs is the first result of an intense power-struggle in a three-cornered fight in Malaya between three forces: British imperial power, Malayan nationalism and international Communism. The first round in the fight has gone to the Nationalists united under Tunku Rahman's leadership. The Communists, who had for years called the U.M.N.O. "a feudal, reactionary, stooge organisation subservient to British imperialism" suddenly awakened to the fact that Tunku Abdul Rahman and U.M.N.O. enjoyed the massive support of the Malay people. The British on their part realised, especially after the demonstration of strength staged by Tunku in 1954-55, that unless they came to terms with him they would ultimately be faced with a Dien-Bien-Phu. Of course, the negotiation itself was carried out with goodwill, courtesy and decorum. But this very cordiality itself is the result of the awareness on both sides of the reality of the power-situation. Of course, in public statements, both sides declared that they were motivated entirely by the highest moral considerations. The final count: What of the second, third and subsequent rounds? It would be a delusion to believe that Tunku's victory, in London last February heralded the conclusion of the fight for an independent and democratic Malaya. It would be an even greater delusion to expect that the promulgation of the Constitution now being worked out by the Reid Commission will in itself make Malaya secure for freedom and democracy. The transfer of power is only the first stage of the revolution in Malaya. The revolutionary tide now sweeping over Malaya has yet to work out its course. The three-cornered power-struggle will by no means be over by August 1957. By then we can safely predict that the Malayan Communist Party will still have its armed detachments deployed in the jungle and its underground organisations still in operation. The British armed forces will still be in Malaya. British civil servants will still occupy important positions. A Malayan Cabinet responsible to the Legislature will be in charge of the nation's affairs under these conditions. The three antagonists will therefore occupy the stage in August 1957, though the balance of power would have shifted. What are their respective chances of ultimate victory? What is the strategy which each is likely to adopt? These are some of the questions to be considered in the next section of this article." Read next week's exciting installment of Suara Merdeka. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if Members in this House do not grow up and rise up to the revolutionary situation, then we certainly will perish. These are the problems which we should have faced some 20 or 30 years ago when we would have had a much better chance of survival. Unfortunately for us, Malayan nationalism only became a force after the Japanese invasion when they knocked the local people about and suddenly awakened them to the fact that their fate was tied up with the fate of the country. It was only after the war that the Nationalists got started. Ultimately, if we want to survive in a democratic Malaya, we must be able to hold that ring, and within the ring allow a free play of forces for peaceful persuasion. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) talked of these nine months till August 1957 and then presumably he thinks our problems will be over when we get this new constitution. Then there will be elections and there will be a Prime Minister and a new government. The problem will still be there. It is here now, it will be there in August 1957. In fact, after August 1957 it will become more acute. Today the Tunku can say, "Let us not discuss Suez. Foreign affairs are out of my hands. Let us pray for peace." But after August 1957, the Nationalists must provide the answer because we can no longer give this excuse: "Ah, but it is the British." Therefore, the three-cornered power struggle will become more intense after August 1957, not less. And to fight the Communists, one must understand how they think. One must understand what they are after. Is it evil? I am not convinced myself that Communism is an evil force. In fact, I agree with about 75 per cent of what they want to do. But it is that 25 per cent of how they do it, that I object and oppose. The reason why we formed the People's Action Party instead of joining the Labour Party or the Socialist Party was because we did not believe the people who were then in the Labour Party and the Socialist Party had the slightest desire or conviction to bring about a social revolution in Malaya or indeed knew anything about social revolution. If in fact, my colleague the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) were a Communist, then I would say, "I agree 75 per cent with him. But I do not agree even 25 per cent with Members on the other side." Some people say that we sit on the fence. We do not. We are positively competing, trying to organise. But we say to the elected Members of this Government: "It was a political mistake. While the rifle barrel is in the hands of the British, to go round the back of the British and start the shooting was wrong." Sir, I said yesterday that a wellknown Marxist dialectician said, "A new society comes out of the rifle barrel." I think I ought to read to Members in this House this extract from the collected works of Mao-Tse-tung, Volume II, page 272 - one of the rare brains in this world. One may or may not agree with certain objectives he wants to achieve but one ought to listen to what he has got to say: "In foreign countries, no bourgeois party needs armed forces under its direct command but China presents a different case; owing to the feudal divisions of the country, whichever, of the landlord or bourgeois blocs or parties has the gun has power, and whichever has more guns has greater power. The party of the proletariat that finds itself in these circumstances should see clearly to the heart of the matter. Communists do not contend for personal military power (they should never do that and let no one follow the example of Chang Kuo-tao) but they must contend for military power for the Party and for the people. As, a national war of resistance is going on, we must further contend for military power of the nation. If we fall victim to infantilism on the question of military power, we shall get absolutely nothing. As the toiling masses have been for several thousand years a prey to the deceit and intimidation of the reactionary ruling classes, it is very difficult for them to awaken to the importance of having guns in their own hands, Now that the oppression of Japanese imperialism and the nation-wide resistance have pushed the toiling masses on to the stage of war, Communists should prove themselves the most clear-headed leaders in the war. Every Communist must grasp the truth: "Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun and the gun will never be allowed to command the Party, But it is also true that with guns at our disposal, we can really build up the Party organisations, and the Eighth Route Army has built up a powerful Party organisation in North China. We can also rear cadres and create schools, culture and mass movements, Everything in Yenan has been built up by means of the gun. Anything can grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the State, the Army is the chief component of the political power of a State. Whoever wants to seize the political power of the State and to maintain it must have a strong army. Some people have ridiculed us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war"; yes, we are, but we are the advocates of the omnipotence of the revolutionary war, which is not bad at all, but is good and is Marxist. With the help of guns, the Russian Communists brought about socialism. We are to bring about a democratic republic." That is the first lesson we must learn, namely, that if the Malayan Communist Party had more guns, then we would not be talking today about parliamentary democracy, its merits and demerits. But I ask, "In this power situation, do hon. Members on the other side honestly believe that the British Conservative Party is going to say, 'Here is the gun.' Quit Malaya like they quit Suez? Do hon.. Members on the other side believe that they can identify themselves with the white man who has the gun and hold the support of their Asian people?" The British are not here to build parliamentary democracy for us. They are here because of tin and rubber interests, because of their economic investments in the country. We should not be so stupid as to lend ourselves to their scheme of things. They yield only under pressure. In this three-cornered power situation as long as the British are here with a gun, our first objective is to dislodge them and take over the gun and the government of the country. When you take over the gun, then your battle begins. Then you can say to yourselves and to the country: "What kind of Malaya are we going to have? This is ours now." Then you can decide, and if one is really democratic, then one says, "All Parties can preach whatever it believes peacefully and constitutionally but we shall hold the gun to see that it is done peacefully and constitutionally." That is the power situation. To get the maximum advantage out of this power situation, one must build organisations and not wait for spontaneous combustions. Mr Speaker, Sir, one Organising Secretary in the Labour Front Party - only one - has brought out a marked and noticeable transformation in the Labour Front Party because he happened to have been trained once upon a time by the Malayan Communist Party. He knew how to organise. Had it not been for him, I think the Front would be in bits and pieces. Look what happened, for instance, when the Press rang up four Ministers and asked, "What do you think about the Duke of Edinburgh's visit? Should it be called off or not?" Four Ministers, Mr Speaker, Sir, responsible men, collectively responsible for the government of Singapore, gave four different opinions to the Straits Times and reduced their Party and the Government to a state of contempt. But because of this organiser in the Labour Front whatever internal differences there were in the Party did not spill out and they appear to be fighting as an organisation. That is the first prerequisite before joining political battle. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have preached non-violence and we have preached it sincerely. Those who believe that the P.A.P. engineered the riots must be utterly mad. Apart from the moral reasons of not using violence to achieve a political objective, there is this vital factor in this power situation in Malaya, namely, that the Police are predominantly Malay, the armed forces are predominantly Malay and the towns where rioting will take place are predominantly Chinese. We knew - in fact, we predicted in our Party statement which we issued in July - that any attempt by any group or by any sector of the population to impose its will on another by force and by coercion means, in effect, the danger of race war in Malaya. The danger is over now but the Assistant Minister for Education knew how acute that danger was during the recent riots. Now it is being asked: "Where was the Member for Tanjong Pagar? Why did he not tell the rioters to keep quiet?"

Yes, why did you not?

The Member for Tanjong Pagar never ran away and never will. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my own mind, I was convinced that the Government asked for this. And once the mobs were on the streets, the only answer was force. Of course, there are people like Mossadeq who can go before a mob and weep, laugh and cry and make them disperse. But this is Asia, not the Levant, and whoever one can be - Tunku Abdul Rahman or Chin Peng - when a mob is out, the only answer is force. You cannot appeal to a mob that is out for blood. A mob is already something beyond the control of reason and will only respond to force. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the riots, I think the Government knew it was coming and the Government moved into prepared positions the moment it happened. In fact, the policy of the Government was such as to have made the riots inevitable. Once the situation had been created and the cry was the defence of Chinese culture and civilisation, with students in a stay-in strike, did the Government expect that only parents would go outside the Chinese High School to wait and see whether their children were beaten up or not in a flush out? The Government has won this round of the battle because ultimately force was the answer. But if you want to win the long-term battle, then you have got to organise the people on your side. And you must get the people who can organise to organise on your side. The first task is not fighting the Communists. The first task is to wrest the rifle barrel from the hands of the British. When you have done that, then you decide what kind of Malaya you are going to have. That has been the stand of the People's Action Party and will continue to be the stand of the People's Action Party. I can think of no greater tribute than the one Mr Sutherland paid me - I hope personally he does not think that I have anything against him - when he said he could forecast 90 per cent of what our attitude was going to be. That shows the consistency and the firmness of the People`s Action Party. We say that the Government's tactics were wrong. Politically, the overall plan was made on false premises. Tactically, they were out-manoeuvred. It does not matter what happens in this Assembly. In fact, it does not matter what happens in the next few months. The Member for Cairnhill wanted to know if there would be a halt to this purge. How can there be? Once the ball has started rolling, where does it end? They cannot stop it. Having gone half the way, they have to complete their plan. Completing their plan means the creation of a vacuum. The creation of a vacuum is possible as long as you have the rifle barrel. But if you cannot fill up that vacuum and you have got to hold the situation by the rifle barrel all the time like Syngman Rhee in Korea and Diem in South Vietnam then there will be many people like myself who have got that 25 per cent disagreement with the Communists. But faced with the choice of suppression and repression in a dictatorial semi-fascist state and the controlled democracy of Communist state, we will not have the slightest doubt which one we prefer. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Hon Members: Division , Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 4; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Ahmad Bin Ibrahim Jumat Goh Chew Chua Braga, A. J. Lazarous, A. R. Butterfield, C.H. Lee Kuan Yew Chew Swee Kee Ede, John Goh Tong Liang Goode. W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Abstention Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Cher Kheng Jumabhoy, R. Lee Choon Eng Lee Choon Mong Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck Absent Lim Yew Hock Mak Pak Shee Lim Ching Siong Marshall, D. S. Ong Piah Teng Mohd, Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid Nair, M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang Tan, William Thomas, Francis Wong Foo Nam Question on the amendment accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there instead," put, and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House supports the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 5.20 p.m.