Hansard, 1956-11-06

DETENTION OF MEMBER - (Constitutional position) 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.

EXEMPTED BUSINESS - (Motion) 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?

EXEMPTED BUSINESS - (Motion) Have I the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members: Aye.

EXEMPTED BUSINESS - (Motion) 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.

EXEMPTED BUSINESS - (Motion) 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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!

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE Order. That, of course, is a completely unparliamentary word. Will the Minister please withdraw it?

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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?

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE That was the last stage.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment and reserve the right to speak at a later stage in the debate.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE 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.

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE Down with the personality cult!

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE I seem to hear the voice of Khrushchev!

GOVERNMENT ACTION UNDER THE BANISHMENT ORDINANCE,THE PRESERVATION - OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, AND THE SOCIETIES ORDINANCE Mao.