Hansard, 1957-04-26

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I find that from the Order Paper two motions of mine which were on the Order Paper yesterday are not carried over. I would draw attention, Sir, to the procedure of this House on Wednesday when Members in charge of items on the Order Paper were not called upon to name a date at the end of the day, and I was under the impression, Sir, that yesterday, as the day before, the items would be carried over automatically. I do not mind the one on the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry on Corruption, Sir, because the Chief Minister has accepted it in full, but I am most unhappy that a long overdue motion on banishment should have been dropped. [That this Assembly notes: -

The honourable Member has been good enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this point. On the first point, of course, on Wednesday there was no moment of interruption. There was just a motion for adjournment and, following past practice, all items undisposed of were automatically carried over to the next sitting day. But when there is the moment of interruption, different considerations arise. Under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 7, inter alia, at the moment of interruption the Clerk shall "read through the remaining items of business standing on the Order Paper and, as each item is read, the Member in charge of that business may name a day on which that business shall again be placed upon the Order Paper." I have in the past, at the moment of interruption, suggested to honourable Members that, unless there was a dissentient voice, I should take the remaining items of business as having been read and place them on the Order Paper for the next sitting day. That of course postulates that Members in charge of those items of business are present. I am not entitled to assume that Members in charge will not dissent. At the moment of interruption yesterday, I noticed that both the Honourable Member for Changi and the Honourable Member for Cairnhill, who were Members in charge of three of the remaining items of business, were not present. I therefore was unable to follow the procedure adopted in the past and the Clerk proceeded to carry out the strict terms of the Standing Order. The position now is that the Honourable Members concerned will have to give new notices of their motions in order to bring them before the Assembly again. Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi) rose -

Is it on this point of order?

Yes, Sir. In view of the statement made by the Chief Minister that the Government was going to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into corruption, which meets the aims and purposes of the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper yesterday but not appearing on today's Order Paper, I here and now declare that I am prepared not to proceed with it any further. [That this Assembly recognizes the paramount importance to Singapore of an incorruptible Public Service, and is of the opinion that a Commission of inquiry under the provisions of the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance (Chapter 52) should be appointed (a) to inquire into the report of allegations of corrupt practices, if any, in the Public Service, the City Council, the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Singapore Harbour Board; and (b) to recommend measures for preventing, combating, and eradicating corrupt practices in the aforesaid Public Service and organizations.]

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, under Standing Order 9 (2), That the proceedings on items 1 and 3 on the Order Paper be taken after item 5. The reason for this is that, as a result of the debate on the Clerks Employment Bill, various points were raised and it was decided to adjourn the sitting to today in order to enable hon. Members to have an indication of the amendments to be proposed. Hon. Members are not aware of the amendments to be proposed and I require a little bit more time for my Ministry to go into detail into the points raised by the Member for Cairnhill.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, though I have not got a Ministry at my disposal, nor various Ministers, nor the Attorney-General's Department, I have prepared and presented to this House my notice of amendments and every Member will find on his seat a copy thereof. I did indicate yesterday - and it was yesterday morning at 11.30 - the exact nature of my amendments, reading them out. I cannot understand why there should be a postponement. I have no objection to a postponement to later today, if it is a question of today; but if the Merdeka motion, which has been sandwiched, perhaps symbolically and appropriately, between a lot of other items, postponed from day to day like a dirty football in a corner, is not completed today, when are we going to have a discussion on items 1 and 3 - the Clerks Employment Bill and the Shop Assistants Employment Bill - which have waited a long time? If the Minister intends to proceed with it tomorrow, if he intends to proceed with it on Monday, I will accept it, but if he intends to postpone consideration beyond Monday, no, Sir, I would rather sit till midnight.

Mr Speaker, Sir, "evil is he who evil thinks." There is no intention whatsoever to delay the passing of these two Bills. The Member for Cairnhill has discussed the amendments which he has in mind with the Attorney-General. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we are prepared to discuss them. There are certain amendments which we are prepared to accept. My concern is for the other Members of the Assembly who, I feel, would like to study the amendments proposed. That is why I asked for these two items to be taken out of the Order Paper. It is not intended that discussion on these two motions will be postponed to an indefinite time. In fact, during the afternoon session, if it is felt by hon. Members that the business set down for today could be completed by a reasonably late hour, I would ask for leave to suspend Standing Orders. Otherwise the sitting will be adjourned to tomorrow.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on items 1 and 3 on the Order Paper be taken after item 5.

Order for Recommittal read. Resumption of debate on Question (25th April, 1957), "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.10 a.m. Question again proposed, "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr Chairman, Sir, resuming from where I stopped yesterday, I would like to point out a few flaws in this roster system in connection with the employment of our seamen, seamen who are registered in Singapore. They are faced with a number of disadvantages. We are aware that ships call not only at Singapore but also at such ports as Penang, Port Swettenham, Malacca, Kuching and so on. If the roster system is disliked by the shipowners and they decide that they are going to destroy it, then unless a parallel roster system could be instituted in other ports, employment would then be taken, not in Singapore, but in other Malaysia ports. I therefore query whether this roster system is going to help our seamen or whether it is going to prevent them from further getting employment. It is very unwise, I think, for Singapore to start this roster system until other governments, such as the Federation and Sarawak, start a similar one. Seamen will then have a better chance of getting a job. I am told that this roster system is prompted by the desire to eliminate bribery. The question of bribery is now being taken up by Government which is appointing a commission to enquire into it. Bribery should be stamped out. There is administrative difficulty; but this problem must be eradicated and we cannot eradicate it by just having a roster system. Let the people who are concerned come forward to Government and report those people who are responsible for such deplorable acts which deny reasonable employment to seamen unless they bribe. Let them come forward and complain to the Government and bring the culprits to book. If Government will take very strong action on this, then that aspect of the argument will be met. However, if Government feels that this roster system will help the seamen - but I do not think it will - then I would like the Government to think carefully about it. Let the system be given a trial, if it must have a trial, but let it be for a fixed period. If the result is that it is not going to create better opportunities of employment for seamen, then the system must be dropped. The idea of this roster system is to protect our seamen. If it fails in its aim, then we must think of other ways of protecting them. I am of the opinion that this system will not achieve this aim and I wish the Government would reconsider it. 10.15 a.m.

I have just one small point to make, Mr Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether it is not a fact that under the roster system the seaman will lose his freedom of choice. He has to take whatever job is offered to him by the vessel or the shipping company, whether he likes it or not, in order to secure employment. Yesterday the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry mentioned how a ship could have a multi-racial crew and yet at the same time work in harmony. He mentioned, for example - it does not really matter if I quote him accurately - that the engine-room hands, for instance, might all be Hainanese. Now I would like to ask: supposing the master of a vessel required two engine-hands, would he, in the ordinary way of things, seeing that his choice is restricted to two rosters, be able to get the men he wanted?

Sir, I would like to make a few points and also ask a few questions. Will the roster system consist of seamen of all races and of all nationalities, or is the system meant to protect only our local men? If it is for all seamen, is it not our duty to do first justice to our seamen who may remain unemployed? If everyone has a chance, it may be that our own men may be last on the roster. Is there any preference given to them? Protests have been made by the ship-owners in regard to the roster system when employing seamen. On the other hand, I understand the Government wants the roster system to protect our seamen. "Our seamen" means I hope those who are born locally. Sir, there are two aspects to the problem. Some say that because of the roster system, seamen may not have sufficient opportunities for employment whether they are of Indian, Pakistan, Chinese or Indonesian nationality and that they may have to go to other ports in search of employment, and the ships might avoid Singapore to get men of their choice. That is the shipowners' point of view. If that happens, of course, we are bound to lose. The other side of the argument is that Singapore is the only port which offers opportunities to the employers to pick and choose seamen of any nationality. Sir, there are certain shipping lines which employ only Chinese seamen. There are others which employ only Indians and Pakistanis. There are still others which employ only Indonesians. Sir, Singapore is a good market for employment for seamen, but if we have a roster system, the situation might arise where a shipping company might find trouble in getting the right men because the seamen selected for employment might not fit in with the other seamen already employed; so the shipping company might have to go elsewhere for seamen. However, I have no strong views about this. If our seamen suffer as a result of this roster system, then the Government will have to amend the Ordinance. The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) rose -

In reply?

Yes, Sir. Mr Chairman, the first and most important misunderstanding which is in the mind of the Member for Serangoon is that Singapore might lose trade as a result of ships being diverted to other ports because they cannot recruit seamen here as they like. That is a very fallacious argument. Ships come to a port not solely for the purpose of recruiting seamen. They do so primarily if an inducement offers. If they can get cargo and it is paying, they will come to a port, if they recruit seamen while at that port, it is just incidental, if the port facilities offer it. They may perhaps stop at an intermediate port on their route if there is urgent necessity to recruit seamen, but they will not go out of their way just to recruit them; and therefore if there is any loss, it is not going to be a loss of commerce to Singapore, a loss of shipping, a loss of transport facilities or diversion of shipping away from Singapore, but it is going to be solely a matter of losing employment for Singapore seamen. So let us get this point clear - it is not going to be a commercial loss to Singapore, it is going to be a loss to seamen as far as gaining employment is concerned. I asked the representatives of the Seamen's Council of Action pointblank in Committee: "Are you prepared to take the risk of shipowners going to some other port to recruit?" And they said, "Yes, we are prepared to take the risk because we are thoroughly fed up with the manner in which the seamen are being exploited here in Singapore." Sir, these people were the representatives of all the unions in Singapore. Should the Committee accept their word as representing the wishes of the seamen, or should it accept the word of some ship-owners who said that, in spite of the unions' assurances that they wanted the roster system, they knew that the seamen would not want it? This is not in accordance with democratic principles. If you have representatives nominated by a certain body, it is their views that you should take as being representative of that section. You cannot claim the oppositions views as representing them. Therefore, if there is any diversion of recruiting seamen away from Singapore to other ports, and as a result the seamen suffer, the best thing for them to do is to throw out the representatives who came to the Select Committee to make representations and appoint a new set of representatives and get them to make representations to Government to abolish this provision in the Ordinance. If that happens after giving the roster system a fair trial - it will take a year to implement it in the first instance - I am sure that the Minister (whoever he is at that moment) will take steps to prevent anything detrimental happening to the people or to a section of the people of Singapore and therefore steps will be taken to rescind that portion of the Ordinance. The Member for Serangoon raised the point as to how we are going to help the Malays if we are going to have a sectional or racial register. What happens if one particular race is not represented on the register? I think a similar point was touched upon by the Member for Telok Ayer. Sir, when I mentioned a separate register for Malays, a separate one for Chinese which is subdivided into sections for the various clans, the same system could apply to other races. But if there are not many seamen of other races, probably we could have a general roster for them: for example, Indians and Pakistanis. These seamen are only a handful in Singapore. The majority of seamen are Malays and Chinese. Therefore it does not mean that the other races who are domiciled here would suffer as a result of this roster. But we cannot force a shipowner to take on a person of a certain race whom he does not want, because that would not be conducive to a happy atmosphere on board the ship. So if a shipowner wants two Hainanese, he could go straight on to the Hainanese category of that roster and recruit them. But which two Hainanese - Mr A and Mr B, or Mr C and Mr D? That is where, as far as the employer is concerned, the shoe pinches - I know. Now seamen from other territories cannot go on to this register in Singapore. They are barred by this Ordinance. But seamen could be signed on outside, say Hongkong, and brought to Singapore. We cannot stop that because those are reciprocal facilities which other ports offer to us. Our seamen can be signed on here and flown over to Hongkong or Sydney or any other port and taken on board there, and if we stop that, then those other countries will stop the same facilities to our seamen. It is possible that Penang or Malacca or Port Swettenham might have a better system of selecting crews and thereby attract shipowners to make their selection of seamen there, but in the past it has been proved, as the Member for Telok Ayer has pointed out, that Singapore can offer the most multiracial type of crews, and most of the Malays who are recruited from Singapore are Federation men - they are from Malacca and Johore. Besides, not all the ships which call at Singapore call at Malacca. In fact, I do not think any big ship calls at Malacca, and only some of them call at Penang and Port Swettenham. Our immigration laws are tight. We do not allow any seamen to come into Singapore. Sir, this Bill is not the result of my being moved by the pleas of the Seamen's Council of Action to do something for the seamen. I have been in the Ministry watching how things are going on, and my heart bleeds for these unfortunate seamen. I have not got the eloquent language which the Member for Cairnhill has at his command, but I say in all sincerity that I feel sorry for them. They are in fact in a much worse plight than the clerks are, because they are not educated. So if you talk of asking them to go and report corruption, it is impossible for them. To a person who is illiterate and who is offered a job but is asked to pay $50 in order to get it, his first inclination will be to pay the $50 and get the job. He will rather do this than get involved if he goes to a police station where he will have to spend time reporting this case of corruption. He will then have to go and give evidence and, for all you know, his word will not be believed because he is held to be a man of straw. It will be his word against that of an official in the Seamen's Bureau or an employee of the shipping company who will probably have backing, and who will say "This man is a liar", and probably the magistrate will believe him. Sir, I have spent a lot of time over this Bill. I have studied every word of it so that it should be as perfect as humanly possible. However, all the Opposition's arguments are based on the idea that the roster system is not going to be successful. Now why should they conceive the idea that it is not going to be successful? First of all, in most cases, most of the employers will not have to go to the roster. They are allowed to sign on their own crew as many times as they like, which means that probably 60 or 70 per cent of the crew can be re-signed on every occasion, and they will only have to go to the roster for the wastage and for replacement of that part of the crew who go on leave or die or leave their employment, which probably will not be a big percentage. Now, when they go to the roster for that small percentage, if they can get efficient seamen from the race and even the clan that they want, then why should the system not succeed? The only hindrance is that they cannot get the person they particularly want - Mr A or Mr B - but they can get efficient men from the race or the clan that they want, and they can have two choices. Now, if a man is not efficient, he has very little chance of getting on the register and subsequently on the roster. If hon. Members have studied the Bill, I will point out clause 7 (c) which reads: "The Minister may make rules not inconsistent with this Ordinance for the following purposes-

Benevolent dictatorship!

It is necessary at times; when you know that the affairs of seamen are in such chaotic conditions and when you know that a certain section of members are out to wreck anything that you do. Some sections could remain away from the Board and refuse to form a quorum and therefore the Board could not function and have meetings. Now if that happens or if they wilfully obstruct, then I am going to remove them under that subclause and I purposely put in that power. If any Member of the House has any doubt as to my ability to administer that or to my bona fide intentions, I would ask them to move a motion to delete that. In fact, I did point it out yesterday or the day before when the debate arose on some other Bill on the same clause.

I am sorry to flog this point, Sir, and I will be very brief about it. I hope I am not being very obtuse but it seems to me that, in fact, there are not two rosters, there are two lists of choice; but if you place your Pakistanis, your Indians or your Hainanese on separate lists, then, in fact, there are several rosters. Would the Minister agree with that?

Sir, the Bill says "roster or rosters" and again it gives power to sub-divide roster or rosters into categories. It is a matter of name. You can call it by any name you like but you have separate lists. The seamen themselves also have been given a chance to have a choice. There is a clause which provides that the Board will decide, if a seaman refuses employment, on what his position on the roster should be. For the first refusal, I am sure the Board will say that there will be no penalty but for a subsequent refusal, they might put him down a few places on the roster; so that the seaman has also a choice.

On a point of information, Sir. Will it be possible for a shipowner to sign on a person say in Penang or in Malacca and then send him over to Singapore to join his ship when it calls here? Is that possible?

I think that that is possible but I do not think that they would do it.

Question, "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Third Reading, what day?

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

Sir, I second it.

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

10.39 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 5 of 1957, be adopted. Sir, this Bill has been a long time in Committee. It is a measure that has been debated, I believe, not only in this session but in the previous session of the Assembly, for more than a year now and the Committee has gone into the matter very thoroughly and examined many witnesses in great detail. Most of the time of the Committee was spent on that controversial clause 47 of the old Bill renumbered clause 41 in the present tabled Bill. The clause dealt with the question of whether the validity of Muslim wills should be restricted only to wills or portions thereof that are in accordance with the Law of Islam. Now, Members will recall that the Select Committee was given a special directive to consider the desirability of including such a provision in the Bill. Detailed examination of the witnesses revealed that the overwhelming majority of Muslims were strongly of the view that such a provision should be included. The same arguments that have been brought out in this House previously against such a provision were put up by a group of two witnesses but a host of other witnesses rebutted these arguments again on lines similar to those brought out by me in answering criticisms at the Second Reading stage of this Bill in November last year. On balance, Sir, the Committee felt that, since there was a strong desire amongst Muslims for incorporating this provision and since there was genuine concern for those rightful heirs who might otherwise be left unprovided for, provision should be entered in the Bill as set out in clause 41. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion. Question proposed. 10.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on this platform before that I never take part in religious controversies. Being a layman, I leave this job to the experts. Personally, I consider that religion is between man and his Creator. No man is perfect except the prophets and one has to answer to his Creator for omissions and commissions whether he follows or does not follow his religion. Sir, I have been placed on the Select Committee and I belong to the Muslim faith. If anyone born of any faith says that his faith is so and so, he must be true and steadfast to his religion when it comes to legislation. There can be no two opinions of any religionist going against one's own religion. Now, Sir, the first object of this Bill is to protect Muslim women against unscrupulous men who abuse the right to marry four women and chuck them off as chattel if they so desire but, strictly following the religion, it is not so. It is enjoined in the religion that when marrying again, the husband has got to give his second, third and fourth wives equal love, it means that it is not possible for anyone to marry more than one wife, excepting when there is no issue, and so on. Now, the whole thing has been abused in this country and it is very necessary to give protection to Muslim women. This Bill should have come into force long ago and should not have taken a year. This is something good in order to protect the women from being exploited by unscrupulous men. However, the discussion went from this to other issues of inheritance and that is how the controversy arose and time has been taken. It is very unfortunate that it took such a long time to get in the main object which is to protect the women. Now, Sir, there is no objection at all to that portion of the Bill as far as marriages and divorces are concerned. There is no objection whatsoever to the suggested clause 47 which is now the present clause 41 as far as any Muslim is concerned. When a Muslim is asked to vote, he has got to follow the Islamic law. Now here, I may say, Sir, that the Koran has stood the test for 1,400 years. Nobody has been able to change it, even a comma. The controversy comes to clause 42 as it is now in the present Bill. Now, Sir, Singapore has got no State religion. The argument has been put forward that if the Government or the Assemblymen are willing to allow the Muslims to enact some of the laws of Islam into a Bill, why not take advantage of it? I certainly agree that we should. At the same time, if there is any defect or if there is any law in existence against the Koranic laws, that should be amended too. As a matter of fact, any other person or a group of persons of different religions could come before this Assembly to present a Bill that they should be governed by their own religions. Of course, the Muslims would have no objection to that as the non-Muslims are allowing us to do so. Now, I draw the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Select Committee meeting held on 26th February, 1957. Sir, clause 42 of the Bill, as it stands now, has got a proviso reading: "Provided that any of the next of kin who is not a Muslim shall be entitled to share in the distribution as though he were a Muslim." Sir, my contention is this. Are we allowing the enactment of laws according to Islamic law? Are the Muslims in this Assembly going to vote according to Koranic law? If they are Muslims, are they not bound to follow the Koran, if they believe in it? Now, there are persons who may do certain things for worldly gain but here they will not only be judged by their God but they also will be judged by their Muslim voters if they go against the Koran. Sir, there was evidence taken on this. The majority view agreed that there should be nothing put in which is against the Koran and that that proviso should be taken off. However, there was a minor difference of opinion. Now, Sir, it is not a matter of opinion. The Koran lays down certain laws which must be followed by every Muslim. There is no question of opinion. In that Committee, Sir, I asked those who differed whether we could have expert advice. As a matter of fact, expert advice was given but, from 26th February, 1957 up till now, they have had enough time that if at all they had wanted to follow their religion, they should have by this time sought expert advice. There is no excuse for them. Sir, I am sorry to take a little more time. I know that the majority of the Members of this House are not Muslims and they may not be very much interested in this question. The law of inheritance according to the Koran is this. If a girl who is not a Christian or a Jewess marries a Muslim, she and her children are not entitled to any inheritance. Also by religion, he is not allowed to marry such a girl. A Muslim is not allowed to get married to any other non-Muslim girl except to a girl belonging to the faith of Christianity or Judaism. There is no bar against such a marriage but the expert opinion and the Koran says that she or her children will not get any share of the inheritance.

On a point of information, Sir.

I would like to continue. If it is not on a point of order, I do not like to be interrupted. Now, this is the position. According to the Koran, this proviso is un-Islamic and it should be taken off the Bill. Sir Sayed Ibrahim Alsagoff, the Chairman of the Muslim Advisory Board, who is an Arab by race, born in Mecca and well versed in his religion, has written a letter - as I said previously, this will not interest the non-Muslim - Members of this House but I pray their indulgence - dated 21st October, 1956, to the Hon. the Chief Secretary and a copy has been forwarded to me. This has been mentioned in the Select Committee meeting held on 26th February, 1957, in which he asked for the deletion of the proviso to the old clause 41 which is, of course, now clause 42. Well, that is also the opinion of the Chairman of the Muslim Advisory Board. Now, whatever the advice or opinion may be, what does the Koran say? Are we going to enact a law for the Muslims? If it is to be a law for the Muslims, it should be according to the Koran and nothing else. Sir, I would like to move an amendment to the motion, namely, At the end of the motion, to add the words "subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 42 to a Committee of the whole Assembly".

Can I have that in writing? Amendment handed in.

It is in order.

Sir, I propose to move an amendment to clause 42, to leave out the proviso reading: "Provided that any of the next of kin who is not a Muslim shall be entitled to share in the distribution as though he were a Muslim." That will be my amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, personally, my request will be that those Muslims in this House who accept the Muslim faith should by right vote-

Order. I have been considering this point very carefully and I do consider that any remark of that nature must, of necessity, be taken as an attempt to influence Members of this Assembly to vote in such a way that if they do not vote in the way indicated by the Member, they might open themselves to either spiritual or temporal injury. That is wrong.

I accept your ruling, Sir. Now, this is my amendment, Sir, and I expect I can say that Muslims should abide by their religion. I beg to move, Sir. 11.00 a.m.

No seconder? The motion fails. The original Question is still before the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill introduced before the House in its present form. The principles as laid down in the Bill meet with the wishes and desires of the Muslims in general. A Bill of this nature has, in fact, been long overdue. As a firm follower of the Islamic faith, I fully support that the Bill now be adopted by this Assembly. 11.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill, which has been tabled in the House, as a Member of the Muslim Advisory Board and also as a Member of this House. This Bill has been put up for a long time, since 1954. The majority of Muslims in Singapore have requested the Government to introduce this Muslims Bill in order to satisfy the Muslim population in Singapore with regard to inheritance. I, Sir, as a Malay and a believer in the Muslim faith, do fully support this Bill, and request that this House should give it fair consideration. 11.03 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a matter properly for the Muslim community of Singapore. In so far as it concerns the life and the pattern of conduct and devolution of property of Muslims, it is a matter which they should properly decide for themselves. We support the Report in its present form because we understand that the majority of the Muslim Members on the Committee, and the majority of the Muslim community representatives who have appeared before the Committee, support the Bill in its present form. 11.04 a.m. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

In reply?

In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opening speech on moving the motion, I purposely did not touch upon clause 42, and this proviso to the clause, as I thought that it had been sufficiently debated in Committee, where the majority of the Members of the Committee being Muslims had rejected the deletion of this proviso, and as I thought that the Member for Telok Ayer had been satisfied. Had I been aware, Sir, that he was going to move an amendment, I would have touched upon it, and he might then have seen fit not to move his amendment; he might probably have been convinced by my arguments. However, I think it is now my duty - even at this late stage - to say something on this clause in order to clear up certain misunderstandings which the Member's speech has created, probably through no fault of his own - perhaps he himself is not clear in his mind as to what the intentions are. Much mention has been made that "according to the Koran this proviso is un-Islamic", and "according to Koranic law this is so on and so forth". However, although the Koran was often mentioned, it was not quoted. That, Sir, is the point - the part of the Koran which purports to forbid Muslims from giving a share of their property to non-Muslim heirs was not quoted. Sir, it is easy to say "according to this, according to that" without quoting anything definite. Now, there are two points I would like to make. First the Koran is the fountain of Islamic law; there is no doubt about that. But Islamic law has been evolved by Muslim jurists over many years since the birth of the Islamic religion; no doubt, they have based Islamic law on the Koran, but they filled in gaps here and there from Hadith. Now, Hadith are the sayings of the Prophet and there is a difference of opinion between the various sects of Muslims on Hadith. Some sects accept certain parts of Hadith, some do not. The second point is that you find among believers in Islam there are so many sects, or firkas, as they are called. The major one are the Sunnis, and in Malaya they form the predominant majority. The Shias are only a handful here. Now, it is true to say that, according to Islamic law, this proviso should be removed; but it is not true to say that according to Koranic law, for there is no specific mention in the Koran that non-Muslims may not or should not share in the property of a deceased parent. Now, Sir, touching on this proviso - prior to 1924, the law applicable here on the distribution of an intestate deceased Muslim was not Muslim law but English law. That English law was changed by the Mohammedan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1923, which came into effect on 1st January, 1924. From that date, the law states that an estate, in a case of intestacy, shall be administered according to Mohammedan law except in so far as such law is opposed to any local custom which, prior to January 1924, has the force of law, provided that any of the next of kin who is not a Mohammedan shall be entitled to share in the distribution as though he were a Mohammedan. From 1924 to the present time, this provision is part of the law of the Colony; yet no good Muslim has taken any objection to it. Probably all Muslims have not abided by their religion, according to the Member for Telok Ayer. The Muslim Advisory Board, Sir, as far back as 1955, made representations on the inclusion of the testacy clause that wills should be executed according to Islamic law, but it did not take any objection to this particular proviso. It was only in October 1956, when some elements began an agitation that the proviso was un-Islamic in nature, that the Board was probably forced to make objection. Even then, they did not press it with as much vigour as they have done in the other one. At the moment, there is in force in this Colony a Civil Marriage Ordinance according to which any marriage made under it is valid. If a Muslim contracts a civil marriage with a non-Muslim woman, that marriage is therefore valid and she is his wife according to the law of the Colony, even though the Islamic law says she is not his wife, if she does not belong to followers of the Book, that is, if she is not a Jew or a Christian. According to the law of the Colony, she is a legal wife and her children are legal heirs. It would be inequitable, therefore, to cut off that wife (or her children) from sharing in any property left by her Muslim husband. Sir, I have here a book written by a prominent Muslim jurist, Mohameddan Law, by Syed Ameer Ali, who is often quoted in the courts in India. On the proviso that non-Muslim heirs should not inherit from a Muslim parent, he says: "These provisos do not owe their origins to religious exclusiveness but to the political necessities of the early Commonwealth, when an unbeliever was an inveterate enemy and an appostate a traitor." There is another big argument against deleting the proviso, and that is that according to Islamic law, not only is a non-Muslim not allowed to share in the property of a Muslim, but a Muslim is not allowed to share in the property of a non-Muslim. This again is stated by Ameer Ali, who writes: "Under the Sunni law, a Muslim does not inherit from a non-Muslim, nor does a non-Muslim inherit from a Muslim"; so that when you have parents who are of another religion and their children are converted into Islam, those children cannot inherit their parents' property. If you are going to be equitable, to see both sides of the argument, and prevent non-Muslim heirs from participating, you have, according to Sunni law, similarly to prevent Muslim heirs - and Sunnis predominate in Malaya. What will happen in countries like India, where many converts to Islam have been made from Hindus and others? -all their children, if they are Sunnis, will not be able to inherit. (I do not know about Shias or other sects). Sir, my contention, therefore, is that it is not correct to stipulate that we must go "according to the Koran" and say that we are not following it by refusing to accept the request of the Member for Telok Ayer - we are sticking to common sense: and, in a multi-racial society like ours in Singapore, where there is close affinity between the races, I do not think it is fair that Muslims should deprive their wives, who may be non-Muslims but who are legally married to them under civil law, and their legitimate children from sharing in their property; and it is also not fair that the children of legally wedded non-Muslim parents, if such children are converted to Islam, are prevented from sharing in their parents' estate. Sir, I beg to move my motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it. Question proposed.

Sir, I beg to move an amendment under Standing Order No. 56 (2) . The amendment would be the substitution of the figure "1957" for the figure "1956" in the Short Title of the Bill.

I take it that it is an oversight. Permission is granted.

Sir, I move, In clause 1, line 5, to delete the figure "1956" and insert the figure "1957". Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time. 11.15 a.m.

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to move, and I now hereby move, the motion standing in my name, namely, That this Assembly-

Look at paragraph 12.

This Report is self-explanatory and I do not propose to go into details. I will, however, touch upon one or two important aspects in my opening speech, and should there be any point on which hon. Members would like elucidation, the members of the All-Party Delegation would supply the information. A study of this Report side by side with the mandate that was given to the All-Party Delegation at the sitting of the Assembly of 5th March will disclose that the mandate has been fully satisfied, except on two points. The first point is paragraph 16 (i) of Sessional Paper No. Misc. 1 of 1957 which reads: "That responsibility for the relations of the Singapore Government and the United Kingdom Government shall be transferred from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations." Sir, the answer to this is to be found in paragraph 55 of the Report contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957, which reads: "The Conference took note that the Singapore Delegation had expressed the desire in paragraph 16 of the Report of the All-Party Conference in Singapore, contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 1 of 1957 for the Legislative Assembly, that responsibility for relations between the Singapore Government and the United Kingdom Government should be transferred from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Chairman explained that Her Majesty's Government understood the feelings which prompted this request, but that it was not possible under the present division of responsibilities between the two offices for Her Majesty's Government to agree that the affairs of Singapore should he transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office." From the explanation given to us, we can safely infer that some change in the division of responsibilities is afoot. Moreover, Sir, the decision of the All-Party Conference was that the All-Party Delegation should press for this demand, but not to make an issue of it. We have therefore discharged the trust. The second point, Sir, is paragraph 13 (b) of Sessional Paper No. Misc. 1 of 1957, which reads: "Government rates of pay and conditions of service to apply to such employees", that is, civilian employees in the armed forces. Sir, the answer again is to be found in paragraph 2 of Appendix C to the Report, which reads: "Her Majesty's Government indicated that they could not bind themselves to relate the rates of pay and other conditions of service of the employees of the Service Departments exclusively to those enjoyed by employees of the Singapore Government. In following the generality of 'good local employers' due account was always taken of the rates and other conditions in both the public and private sectors of employment." Sir, this demand is not a constitutional issue at all but was included in order that the matter could be pressed in London with the Service Departments. It is clear from paragraph 11 of Sessional Paper No. Misc. 1 of 1957 that there is to be no change in the responsibilities of external defence and external affairs apart from the control of trade and cultural relations which should be vested in the Singapore Government. The Government, however, is interested in this matter and will render all possible assistance to the workers' organisations concerned. Sir, I would like now to touch on paragraphs 52, 53 and 54 of the Report. These refer to the date of introduction of the new constitution. The view of the All-Party Delegation, as expressed in paragraph 54, correctly reflects the view of the Assembly as made known at its sitting on 5th March. The Government does not wish to hold office under the present constitution longer than is necessarily imposed by the desire of the Assembly to give every opportunity to all persons who will acquire citizenship rights to have a say in the choice of the new government under the new constitution.

You can do that this month.

The Government will do everything in its power to expedite the fulfilment of this desire.

The instalment plan!

And now I come to the second part of my motion, and that is: "approves the stand of the All-Party Delegation in not accepting the condition stipulated in paragraph 30 of the Report." Paragraph 30, Sir, clearly states the stand taken by the All-Party Delegation. We had no directive from our various Parties on this issue, nor had we a mandate from this Assembly, but as it was made clear to us that Her Majesty's Government intended to impose this condition unilaterally, and in exercise of the powers still vested in them, the All-Party Delegation decided that we should only take note of this intention and report to this Assembly. The Parties represented in this Assembly, Sir, now have had time to consider this condition, and this will no doubt be made known to us in this debate. The Secretary of State explained to the delegation that this was a temporary restriction. It was only to apply to elections to the first Legislative Assembly under the new constitution and that only detainees whose appeals had been rejected by the Appeals Tribunal would be affected, and Her Majesty's Government intended to impose this, sincerely believing that this was for the good of the people of Singapore. Sir, my Party has given full consideration to this condition, and has decided to approve the stand taken by the All-Party Delegation in not accepting the condition. As the Party in power, there is another reason why we cannot accept this condition. We will be placed in the invidious position of having our actions against subversive elements being twisted by uncharitable people as a measure against our political opponents and thus prevent them from standing for elections. The actions that we have taken in the past and may take in the future while we are still in office are and will be in the discharge of our responsibilities to look after the welfare of the people of Singapore. Sir, if my motion is accepted under the first part, the drafting of the new constitution can be proceeded with without further delay. The Government can introduce a Citizenship Bill-

When?

- which has to be prepared in consultation with Her Majesty's Government, see paragraph 49 of the report, and implement such other action as to expedite the elections.

In due course.

And under the second part, the Secretary of State can be moved to reconsider the imposition of Her Majesty's Government's condition precedent to the new constitution. Sir, I would like to conclude by saying once again in this Assembly that we are grateful to the Government of the Federation of Malaya, and particularly to the Chief Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, for their assistance and co-operation which made possible the creation of an Internal Security Council under the new constitution on a three-three-one basis. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. As a member of the All-Party Delegation, I believe we have discharged our duties to this Assembly. We have carried out the mandate given to us by the people of Singapore expressed through the various political Parties and through the Assembly here. We believe, Sir, that we have secured the maximum possible. I remember that last year we failed and after we failed, some attempt was made to revive the conference, and if we had secured agreement then, comparatively speaking, we would still have got more this year. The failure last year was regretted, because it would have been one year earlier for us to have self-government if we had secured agreement. We would probably be in the midst of an election today. However, all that is past and we have started anew. We went to London again this year and we got what we wanted. I know there might be criticism that what we have got is too little. People may say that we should have elections immediately, but the All-Party Delegation had in mind that the people who are to enjoy citizenship rights should be given a chance. Some people are of the view that it could be implemented immediately and that these people should be given, say, two months to register themselves. However, to be democratic and knowing as we do that not all people in Singapore understand everything told to them once or twice, we feel that we should give them more opportunity to be well versed in what is imparted to them and to exercise their right to become Singapore citizens.

Whilst we sit in the Assembly.

Furthermore, Sir, since the citizenship law - and we agreed to this during the last time we met - cannot be promulgated at once, there must be consultation. Time must be allowed for the passage of the Bill - [Interruption]

Order. I think in this particular debate I must insist that there should not be unseemly interruptions.

Thank you very much, Sir. I am quite used to such interruptions. The United Kingdom too must amend its Nationality Act because we have just got self-government. It is not independence, and as it is, we are still to some extent governed by the laws in the United Kingdom. I believe those who have so much concern for the people who will be eligible to become citizens of Singapore should have a thought for them and should devise ways and means of letting them make the right decisions to shoulder responsibilities in Singapore. Probably another criticism may be levelled at the delegation about the Security Council, and they may say that this gives the United Kingdom Government a great deal of power. Compared with what we would have got last year, I think we are in a much better position, because now we have not only the three votes of the Singapore Government, but we also have the Federation vote. The Federation vote, I think, is one of the most impartial votes which we could get. On the one hand, I understand they have made an agreement with the United Kingdom on a matter of defence. On the other hand, however, they are a close neighbour of Singapore and understand Singapore's problems much better, and I believe they will vote in a very fair way, both to the United Kingdom and to Singapore. In fact, they should vote more favourably to Singapore because events taking place in Singapore will also affect them. Coming to the last part of the motion, we are of the opinion that the condition stipulated in paragraph 30 of the Report could not be accepted because it is undemocratic. We are trying to sell democracy and we feel that if we are to fight undemocratic elements, we should use democratic means to fight them. We know that if we fight in a democratic way we will win in the end, whereas probably we will be accused of winning our battle if we tie the hands of the undemocratic elements. That condition however is imposed on us by the United Kingdom. They have the power to do so at present. They mean to use that power. We are still subjected to that power, but we can only shake that off after we have held our first elections, and if we want to shake that condition off, we must hold an election-

Now.

Not now, but as early as we can after we have considered the rights of the people whom we have always in mind. We want to give them those rights. Sir, I beg to second. Question proposed. 11.42 a.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this motion, which came at the tail of a long list of business and kicked around from day to day like an unwanted football, and in the speeches in support of this motion, not a single time was merdeka mentioned - not even tiga suku merdeka. But let me name it - tiga suku busok merdeka. They know, and we know, that what is here before us is a request that we nail down for a further indefinite period with our own hands, we hammer in the nails of colonialism which was imposed on us by force before - that is no fault of ours. But now with our own hands we are to rivet the chains on the people who trusted us, the people who had faith in us, the people who loved us, and hoped that we would know how to effect the freedom and the dignity which they desire. Sir, there is a phrase in the English language - "stony silence". It connotes cold contempt, the quiet and implacable antagonism of the temporarily helpless, the quiet of the people who lined the streets of Singapore when the Japanese troops held their sway. Just stony silence. Today, Sir, Singapore is eating the ashes of its dead hopes with stony silence, despite the grin of our naturalised Malayan, the Minister for Public Works. They can glory, Sir, because they have so provided that they will remain in office as long as this Government is an effective extension of the Colonial Office, not only to 1959, but thereafter by Order in Council. I shall seek to prove it. Sir, there was a very considerable propaganda build-up by the happy newspapers of Singapore, our imperialist, colonialist, capitalist friends. There was even a considerable propaganda build-up by Government organisations - like Radio Malaya - to welcome the heroes of the Merdeka Mission - the all-successful Merdeka Mission, so heavily praised by the Colonial Office, so heavily praised even by the man for whom I have some respect, Malcolm MacDonald.

Old friends so parted!

So I learn that a man, however good, in the service of the Government toes the line, as they learn to toe the line in the P.A.P. One day their Treasurer says he supports David Marshall in his appeal for immediate elections, and it is published in the newspapers. The next day, he writes in an official memorandum to say, "I erred. I am sorry. My Party has changed its mind. It is against immediate elections." Sir, to know how the ashes of our dead hopes are being served up with all the pomp of colonialism by the gentlemen of the Merdeka Mission - I saw a newsreel, Sir - I have not seen a newsreel of the signing yet, I must see that. It was not the signing of the agreement, Sir, it was the agreement of disagreement. But I saw a newsreel of the triumphal return of this Merdeka Mission and the people's reaction. Sir, this newsreel with all its modern propaganda techniques and all its dubbing in of sound effects could not hide the small number, or the stony silence, of the onlookers. The decorations which greeted the delegation were the British Crown and the British Lion rampant, emblems of imperialism thoroughly appropriate to welcome back the delegation that handed the people of Singapore to continued imperial rule. I have no doubt that the officials, who put up these decorations of the British Lion rampant and the British Crown intended for His Royal Highness Prince Philip, thought that, apart from a question of degree, the status was the same, here were further imperialist factors, and they were entitled to an imperialist welcome. On the padang, Sir, the stony silence of some 5,000 people, although, Glory be, a platoon of the P.A.P. sought to liven matters up on command with boos and calls of merdeka. The boos were deleted, Sir, oh let me say that right away, in case the Chief Secretary takes action against this film unit, the boos were deleted and merdekas were dubbed in. Where were the people of Singapore? Where were the people of Singapore?

In Batu Pahat!

One of them, whose contempt for the Merdeka Mission would never have permitted him to be anywhere near the participation of the triumphal return, was doing his duty to the citizens of Malaya in Batu Pahat.

Hooray!

Order.

But where were the rest - walking around on the padang across by the sea and completely ignoring the Merdeka Mission. And the rest of the people of Singapore? Where were the trade unions, the T.U.C., the Government trade unions, the P.A.P. trade unions? Where were they? The newsreel tried to imply that a loving T.U.C. had stopped the car which was carrying the triumphant Chief Minister and handed him banners and the picture of a sick lion. The T.U.C. has officially denied it was ever present at any part of the procession to welcome back this Merdeka Mission. Where were the trade unions? Sir, the Labour Front made a special matter of passing a special resolution at its annual conference to welcome back its members in the Merdeka Mission with a mammoth rally. Where was that mammoth rally? It was not and it could never be, Sir, because the Labour Front and every Member of this House and every citizen outside knows that a mammoth rally would be a horrible joke, that there would be nothing but stony silence, and perhaps worse, to welcome back these gentlemen who have handed us over to our enemies. Sir, why, why this cold contempt of the people of Singapore for their Merdeka Mission, as evidenced on the day of their return and since? Because when the hour of opportunity struck, Singapore was found wanting, wanting through the inadequacy of its own representatives. We failed, Sir, not because Lennox-Boyd was too strong - that is a glorious failure: it is a failure of which we need not be ashamed; when we are broken by superior force and we are shot down with a machine-gun bullet - we failed because we were afraid of Merdeka, we, the representatives of the people of Singapore. We failed because we have weak guts - we, whom the people of Singapore trusted. In silence must the people of Singapore bear the shame that their own representatives, the people they trusted, let them down. Their people failed in the hour of opportunity. All Singapore, Sir, shared the shame of the inadequacy of its delegation at the wonderful opportunity which was before it. Sir, it has been very fashionable to damn the flamboyant ex-Chief Minister, to seek to bury him and to place on his shoulders the slimy hatred of persons who fear an honest and a clean constitution for the people of Singapore, which would make radical changes in the present vested interest set-up. But I am not seeking to justify myself if I ask you to turn back a few pages. I will give you my word - I can take what I am given and I can take a lot more. I survived the Japanese prisons, do not forget. I ask you to turn back the pages because I want you to contrast what happened and what has happened in order to judge the attitude of the people of Singapore. Can you remember, Sir, the warm solid support of the people of Singapore during the constitutional crisis of our young days, in July and August 1955? Even the double-crossing P.A.P. supported us, and I have, as a trophy of honour, a little cartoon in a Chinese paper showing the rejoicing of the people of Singapore, who were prepared to have no government at all rather than a stooge government. They were united, the Sikhs, the Chinese, the Malays, the Indians, the Eurasians, all of us. Do you remember, Sir, Merdeka Week last year? I shall not remind you of the motion of the Member for Paya Lebar who said, "Let us have independence immediately." I shall not. Sir, I am trying to draw attention to some of the decent things that have occurred - the Merdeka Week of last year; the unity of purpose of all races; the signature campaign - I know, because we were told it was those horrible little Chinese school boys - let me say this to you - those Chinese school boys have committed many errors; the Chinese school boys have been a headache and have caused harm to Singapore; their conduct has harmed temporarily our relations with the Federation, but in those Chinese school boys there is pure gold, there is honesty, there is sincerity, there is idealism, there is energy. And those who sneer at those Chinese school boys will never be abe to guide the destiny of this country to anything that is worth while. Sir, we speak of the signature campaign. Sir, I have to anticipate objections because I am not going to be permitted a second speech. Sir, do you remember the mammoth rally at the padang? Yes, I know, we broke a few windows - that is what you remember, a few windows only were broken. Oh, those dreadful things so beautifully magnified by the English Press! That is what they remember about that mammoth rally.

Order. I think the hon. Member ought to address his remarks to the Chair.

I was indeed, Sir. With respect, I say to the Chair that that is what the English Press has so beautifully magnified. The English Press, which slants and slimes every honest effort at nationalism in this country. Subversion? What is that but subversion, Sir, that the English Press does by dishonest techniques to try and destroy our struggle for true nationalism. What is that but subversion. Are we sending Colonel Simmonds to the undemocratic Changi jail? No, Sir. Yes, you remember. Everbody remembers. We remember the mammoth rally because of the broken windows. Heh, heh, heh, heh! I remember, Sir, the decency, I remember the affection. I remember the enthusiasm, I remember the good humour of 40,000 to 50,000 people. I remember the warmth of the people seeking freedom, the realisation of their hopes for a clean and honest future, to stand straight in the eyes of God and their fellow-men, in friendship with the United Kingdom, and at peace with all the communities in Singapore. That is what I can remember, Sir. There were acts of hooliganism, all right-

Friendship with the United Kingdom?

Friendship with the United Kingdom I say I do believe. Those people are understanding. Their friendship is necessary for our long-term welfare - friendship and partnership. Sir, in those days the people gave us all we asked for. They gave us their love. They gave us their trust. They gave us their support in every way that we asked for it, because it was going to be a people's merdeka, and we had not only shouts of merdeka, not only mammoth rallies, but we had the joy of unity of feeling, of being in the swim with all human beings. To greet a politicians' merdeka, we have a stony silence. Sir, it is not fashionable today to speak of independence. No, Sir, we are frightened. Those persons who are vocal, who have the opportunity to talk in this House, they are frightened of independence. They are frightened of merdeka. We say we are too small, not viable. We say that we must bend our knees and put our foreheads to the dust at the feet of the Tunku until it pleases him to lift us up. I say to you, Sir, that is not the fate of Singapore. I say to you, Sir, that I have times without number in this House and outside indicated that our ultimate and our true destiny, the true destiny of the Federation and of Singapore is in unity. That I do not question, I have never questioned, and I have even struggled for it before the Tunku took office, immediately he was elected; and he, who is an honest man, will admit it. In fact, it is in the books. Sir, to crawl on my forehead and on my knees gives me a backache, and I do not believe it will assist Singapore in bringing it any nearer to unity with the Federation. I believe that such an attitude, Sir, will merely increase contempt-

Does the hon. Member realise-

Order.

If the Tunku-

Order. The Member for Tanjong Pagar stood up. Does he wish to intervene?

Does the Member for Cairnhill not understand that what he is saying is making things worse?

Order. The hon. Member can only intervene if the Member for Cairnhill has given way.

I say, Sir, that it is the duty of Singapore and those who purport to be its leaders to face facts squarely. One fact is that our ultimate destiny, our true destiny, and not only ours but that of the Federation, is in a united Malaya. I have said, I do not know how many times, but let me repeat, that the Federation without Singapore is like the the fingers of the hand without its thumb. Singapore without the Federation is the thumb without its fingers. But we can exist independently, and I say, Sir, that crawling to the Federation on our foreheads and on our bellies and on our knees can only create contempt, and is creating contempt today, and can only achieve a position whereby the Federation seeks control, without giving protection, seeks privileges without giving any concession. That is what the present trend is heading for. I say, Sir, that if the Tunku does not want us, and if the Federation does not want us, then it is the duty of the people of Singapore not to continue crawling on their bellies but to reorient their outlook, and that was the position we took last year, and which the Member for Tanjong Pagar endorsed as a member of the delegation in London - that if we cannot achieve integration with the Federation, then we must have independence within the Commonwealth. Sir, - Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Point of order?

Information, Sir.

No, Sir.

Coward!

You are-

Order. The hon. Member must not use the word "coward". Will he withdraw it, please?

I withdraw it. I shall deal with it in due course.

If it please you, Sir. I am saying that Singapore must consider, until such time as it can with dignity achieve unity with the Federation, whether it is to remain a colony or to achieve a position of human dignity and independence within the Commonwealth. I know that the Commonwealth is supposed to be an obsession with me, all right, but obsession or no, let me add this: if we are not wanted in the Commonwealth, then we must again reorient our attitude, Sir, and consider whether we should not instead struggle to make this territory an international territory, an international port, under the protection and the Asian headquarters of the United Nations. Yes, it is easy to sneer, Sir, very easy, but much that we benefit by today, much that is gracious in our way of life, much that is worth while in our thinking, was started by allegedly crazy people. If I am called crazy by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I shall indeed consider that an honour. To those who consider it fashionable today, Sir, to speak of how small Singapore is, how weak, how impossible it is for us to achieve independence until the Federation has mercy upon us, may I draw their attention to some of the things we said last year? I quote from the Report of the Singapore All-Party Mission to London, April/May 1956, Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956, at page 19, in a speech delivered in London at the opening of the constitutional conference at Lancaster House: "As to its size the population of Singapore is larger than that of New Zealand when it became a member of the League of Nations. Our population today is larger than the population of seven independent countries who are members of the United Nations - Iceland, Costa Rica, Jordan, Libya, Luxembourg, Nicaragua, and Panama and only slightly less than three other independent countries - Honduras, the Lebanon, and Paraguay. Our revenue is greater than that of 16 independent countries which are members of the United Nations." So our revenue is more than 16 independent countries and our population is equal to almost ten independent nations who are members of the United Nations. What did we say, Sir, in our memorandum - approved by the P.A.P. by the way - submitted to the Singapore Constitutional Conference by the All-Party Mission: "Though the present Constitution of Singapore did not come into operation until the 8th February, 1955, all parties are agreed that the aspirations of the people of Singapore cannot be met except by the attainment of full self-government within the Commonwealth as soon as the necessary constitutional changes can be brought about." "Full self-government within the Commonwealth", Sir. I continue: "As in other Asian countries, colonial status is considered to deprive the people of self-respect." It seems now that colonial status under the Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution deprives the people of self-respect, but colonial status under the Lennox-Boyd-Yew Hock Constitution does not. We shall see. "On the 25th July, 1955, the new Legislative Assembly clearly affirmed its resolution that colonialism be brought to a speedy end in Singapore. On the 5th April, 1956 the Legislative Assembly passed the following resolution:-" Sir, I hope the gentlemen are not bored to hear what they did. If they are, may I remind them about this: "That this Assembly affirms, in the name of the people of Singapore, its belief in the principle of 'the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice', as enunciated in the Washington Declaration signed by Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and President Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, on the 1st of February, 1956: And its belief that the long term welfare of Singapore lies in close and friendly cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories; Therefore the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore-" Now, what did we seek? "-the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce." And that resolution, Sir, in case your memory is short, was passed by 27 votes to zero and four abstentions - three officials and Mr Sutherland, Now, Sir, I am amused to note that the Member for Tanjong Pagar noticed this motion of the Assembly and referred to it in a speech on the 5th of March, 1957, Sir, at a hastily convened sitting of this Assembly, after my departure for Brunei.

On important business.

Yes. It was known that I would leave for Brunei on the first of March. On the first, notice of motion was given for the 5th. I was never informed at all. I tried to get back, Sir, and as you are aware, I arrived four hours too late - the Merdeka motion taking two hours to be debated in this Assembly, two hours - I consider it indecent haste. Here is what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said about this motion. I hope he does not mind, I know that the P.A.P. thrives on inconsistency, and the P.A.P.'s basic political philosophy is to try and fool most of the people most of the time to get into power. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on the 5th of March, 1957, said, at col. 1465 of the Official Report: "But I did look up the former resolution. The House will forgive me if I were to remind them of the terms of the resolution they passed on the 5th April last year. The resolution first opens with a flourish by a reference to the Washington Declaration of Dwight D. Eisenhower... Those were fierce words and, I am sorry to say, they did not materialise. Looking back now, I thought -" Not "I think" - a man is entitled to change his views, Sir. "- I thought - like when the platform collapsed at the famous rally at Kallang-" He did not collapse on the platform- "- it was a symbolic act of unwisdom of people who did not prepare the ground before they climbed on the platform." "A symbolic act of unwisdom", Sir. Can you tell me, Sir, who was the man who seconded the motion on the 4th of April, 1956? Who was the man who seconded the "symbolic act of unwisdom"?

I was not on the platform.

Sir, I know that last year it was fashionable to be a nationalist, and this was a nationalist motion, so the Member for Tanjong Pagar seconded the motion, His was the privilege of seconding the motion. His was the privilege of seconding this "symbolic act of unwisdom". This year it is no longer fashionable to be a nationalist. It is fashionable to be a colonialist. He considers it a symbolic, act of unwisdom.

It hurts, does it not?

Yes, it hurts indeed to see the twistings and turnings and tortured conduct of the P.A.P., always seeking to adopt what is fashionable today because, by doing that, you fool most of the people most of the time - and those who can see what you are doing do not matter, because they are a minority. Their votes will not matter very much. But, Sir, remember, this is the principle of the P.A.P. - you achieve political office, you achieve political power, by fooling most of the people most of the time, and so inconsistency is quite naturally part of their technique and double-crossing is part of their technique. I mentioned the Kiss of Judas at the very first sitting of this Assembly in April 1955-

Order. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your consent and the assent of this House under Standing Order 72 to move under Standing Order 7 (11), That the proceedings on item 5 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

Have I the assent of hon. Members?

No.

On a point of information, Sir. May I ask what happens, Sir, if the sitting were to continue till about seven or eight o'clock in the evening?

I might explain the position. There may be some misunderstanding about the whole position. The position is that if hon. Members agree that Standing Order 7 be suspended in respect of item 5, then this Assembly will continue to consider item 5 after the moment of interruption until its completion. At its completion, the Assembly will automatically stand adjourned until Monday when the remaining items on the Order Paper will no doubt be considered. That is the position if, of course, hon. Members agree to the motion. First, I must have the assent of hon. Members that that motion be moved.

No, Sir.

The Question then is, That this Assembly-

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is all very simple. First we get the whip, now we want the gag; hon. Members are quite tired, I am going to take quite some time on this matter. I cannot treat it in the cursory fashion in which it has been dealt with by the Hon. the Chief Minister, and Members on the Opposition and elsewhere are entitled- The Chief Minister rose -

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of explanation, Sir.

I would like to go on.

Order. I think perhaps the hon. Member has misunderstood the position. I quite agree that Standing Orders sometimes can be very complicated but, in this particular instance, the request, I think, would be that the Assembly continue even till midnight to deal with this item until it is completed. [Interruption] Order. If the motion is not agreed to or there is no assent given that the motion should be moved, the position then would be, of course, that, at the moment of interruption, all business stops and we continue again on Monday. That is the position.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I lost my temper a little this morning and I would like to apologise. I cannot, Sir, imitate the stony silence of the people of Singapore. To my mind, what is happening is a deathblow to democracy in this territory and Cairnhill has a voice unlike the other helpless sections and I intend to make that voice heard. Perhaps I should be a little more courteous. I understand that Julius Caesar, when the bloody hand of Brutus struck, said, 'And you, you Brute' or words to that effect. I am inclined to believe that Shakespeare romanticised, Sir, and that when Julius C�sar felt the knife of his best friend in his own heart, he must have rent the heavens with his cry of death. I consider, Sir, that what is happening today is the destruction of all hope for the establishment of democracy, attraction of goodwill and respect for the democratic process and that we are clearing the arena for what the Member for Tanjong Pagar would describe as a clean, straight fight between the Colonial Office and its fellow travellers on the one hand, the Communists and their fellow travellers on the other hand and the decent people of Singapore, being inarticulate, are between the crossfire of those two camps. Sir, the people of Singapore, although they are inarticulate, do seem to have second sight and do seem to understand. Once they believed that there was possible a people's merdeka. Their stony silence before and after these merdeka talks and during these merdeka talks, as my friend the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) has pointed out to mean, was an indication that they knew that what they were going to get was a politician's murder-ka-document that murdered what they seek. Sir, the Lennox-Boyd-Yew Hock Constitution is in spirit and in fact as colonial a document as the Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution although it is an improvement in some aspects. You do not believe me?

I was wondering whether the name "Yew Hock" refers to the Chief Minister.

Indeed, Sir, he signed the Rendel Commission's Report and that is why we call it the Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution.

Will the hon. Member then say the Rendel-Chief Minister Constitution?

Chief Ministers come and go, Sir; even this Chief Minister here who hopes to go on forever.

Not at all.

Sir, it may be that I am crazy but I trust that Members and you, Sir, have some respect for the Times of India, a paper respected in its own great country, a country of many millions, a country of long culture, a country that has known colonialism, a country that has travelled successfully and constitutionally into freedom and a country that bears us no ill-will, What does the Times of India in its leader, Sir, of the 16th of April, 1957, say (heading "Disappointment")? I quote, Sir: "Although Mr Lim Yew Hock, the leader of the All-Party delegation, has affixed his signature to the draft constitution for Singapore recently negotiated with the British Colonial Secretary, it is difficult to resist the impression that he has done so with many reservations - reservations which are apparently shared by other members of the delegation - and will almost provoke bitter controversy when the constitutional proposals are debated in the Assembly. The so-called constitution which has emerged from amongst painstaking negotiations is a particularly outstanding example of an unsuccessful compromise that will obscure rather than clarify the colony's political future-" I did not write this, gentlemen: "-a future that will apparently be a strange compound of self-government and dependence on the British Government of a kind almost indistinguishable from colonialism." [That is putting it politely, Sir,] "...it has nothing to do with the kind of self-government that is the only answer to colonialism." Sir, this constitution is known by all who can read and understand to be an improvement in part but is, in fact and in essence, a colonial constitution and the improvements are not to be brought into force until an indefinite period when it so pleases His Excellency the colonial official. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister knows full well that what he has got back is a thing that is deformed and a thing of shame. That it why he applies the Whip in a matter which should be beyond party politics. The delegation has had a wonderful and a unique opportunity for success. The last delegation, blocked a few yards from goal last year, passed the ball to the present Chief Minister, creating a diversion to weaken the opposition. The disclosures of the Fascistic attitude and tactics of the Colonial Office towards Singapore last year earned for the people of Singapore the active sympathy of all Asian nations with considerable repercussions on the Colonial Office. They realised that they could not afford to fail again and they realised that they had to succeed and succeed soon to save their face. Not only in India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Japan but even in China, there was the most heartfelt and active sympathy for the people of Singapore. Let us admit frankly, Sir, to be fair: the Chief Minister improved his position after receiving the ball and improved it magnificently. Whatever we may think, in the context of the long-term welfare of Singapore, of his actions in August and October last year, there is no question whatsoever in my mind - nor should there be in anybody else's - that his actions in August and October improved his position vis-a-vis the Colonial Office to a very considerable extent. The goal was wide open. He knew it and he fumbled and all we get is a corner kick, and why, Sir? Because there has developed in the past few months a fear complex, a fear of merdeka which the Progressives always had in their hearts but which the rest of us did not have - a contagious fear - a fear that took away our faith in our people and in our destiny. Sir, I will say this: I am not above fear and I am not without recognition, nor have I ever been, of the dangers involved in any progress. A man enforced to lie horizontal for 20 years, when you start to make him walk, will fall and bark his shins and break his bones. He needs to learn to walk. He must be encouraged to walk. Sir, in the world of today, fear is not only for those of us in Singapore who are considering the consequences of merdeka but fear is for all the people of the world. Although the Minister for Health (Mr Braga) takes so blithely the repercussions of the hydrogen bomb, most thinking people do have a very real fear that there will be an extermination of the human race as a whole and certainly of human culture of today but we cannot, Sir, survive in any way whatsoever if we are to permit our conduct to be governed by fear. Fear is an inhibitive and a corrosive emotion. It is no basis on which to build your future. Though one should recognise the grounds which indicate danger, one should nevertheless, in my view, have faith in oneself and in the future and this faith the Merdeka Mission lacked. Sir, the Merdeka Mission has returned as loyal subjects of the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd and their cries of merdeka are empty cries. Now, Sir, I shall come to my specific objections to this deformed thing that we have before us, this Report that is not an agreement, this agreement that is not an acceptance. Sir, my first and foremost objection - and I hope the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) will hear this - is that the agreement gives us much less, I repeat, very much less and I repeat once more, radically less than what was offered the Singapore delegation last May. Now, Sir, unlike the Member for Serangoon, I do not intend to make a statement and leave it alone. I intend to prove it with chapter and verse. My second objection, Sir, is that this document, if and when it comes into force, makes no change to the essential colonial spirit of our status. We remain colonial subjects. It is a colonial government and we are under the domination of a foreign colonial power and not merely external domination but domination in our every-day life. My third objection, Sir, is that the date for implementation of this extraordinary constitution is of an indefinite character which suggests that it is never intended to be brought into force. This Assembly is not entrusted, Sir, with the question as to whether the time is ripe to bring it in nor can we petition and get a consent. It must be a colonial official who, in his goodness, must be satisfied that the time is ripe to bring in that constitution and let me repeat that so long as this Government is an efficient extension of the Colonial Office that long will there be no new constitution and no election, for let us recognise, Sir, that by a simple Order in Council, this Government can request their friend the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd to continue their life for ever and ever, amen. Sir, there are other items of objection to this agreement. There is the insistence of the Colonial Office that we remain under its jurisdiction. It is a petty matter, Sir, when the whole thing is in a mess. Our insistence at the time was, "Look, Great Britain, we want a clean future relationship with you. We want a relationship of goodwill. We want an end to struggle. We want a new chapter in our life, a chapter of partnership and of co-operation. So do not insist on the Colonial Office being the channel of our relationship. You pass your relationship through the sewer of the Colonial Office. It must stink when it gets to this end." But, Sir, when we have the whole thing a stench, what does it matter if it goes through the sewer of the Colonial Office? What we have now, Sir, is not a document that anybody in this House can pretend is one on which the people of Singapore should rest content. Sir, then we have the comic weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about the banning of subversives, the comic relief which I shall come to, in due course, but they are minor matters. I am in a very queer position there, Sir. I consider that it is the duty of the Singapore Government to make such provision in its own Elections Bill but I also consider that it is most improper for the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd or anybody else outside this territory to tell us how to suck eggs and to make us do it their way - Oxford way of eating eggs, not Cambridge. Sir, I come now perhaps to the most crucial aspect of this consideration. The Hon. the Chief Minister has very studiously avoided any suggestion that he got more than what was offered last year. He knows darned well that it is not so. But the seconder, the Member for Serangoon, says that we got more than last year. Sir, you will forgive me if I take some time on this aspect and prove to you not merely that we got radically less but we handed over lock, stock and barrel all control over internal security - we who pretend to the status, the powers and the privileges of a self-governing territory! Let us see! Look at, Sir, the debate of 5th March, 1957, columns 1457 and 1458. What did this Assembly ask? Without my presence to spur anybody on, Sir, we asked: "... from Her Majesty's Government for the people of Singapore the status of a self-governing state with all the rights, powers and privileges thereto appurtenant in all internal affairs.". That is clear: "... and the control of trade, commerce and cultural relations in external affairs." But let us look at this mandate which has been fulfilled to the hilt: "We demand the status of a self-governing state with all the rights, powers and privileges thereto appurtenant in all internal affairs." Let us look, Sir, at the Report produced by the All-Party Conference to this Assembly last month and there it says in the clearest terms: "When the last talks broke down, the Singapore Mission had been offered by the United Kingdom Government counter proposals to our demands, and these are set out as Annexure L, Pages 67, 68 and 69 of Cmd. Paper 31 of 1956. The Conference's decision is that the All-Party Mission" [this is this present Conference, Sir] "will not accept anything less than what had already been offered by the United Kingdom Government." Right, what were we offered? Look, Sir, at the document to which this refers and that is Annexure L in Cmd. Paper 31 of 1956 being the Report on the All-Party Mission to London last year and if it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be reading from Annexure L, at page 67. These are the constitutional proposals offered by the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore through their delegates in London on 12th May, 1956 (a year ago): "(1) Singapore to be known as the State of Singapore." Granted again. "(2) The Governor to be replaced by a High Commissioner." Not agreed and there is, it is suggested, an improvement. All right, we will mark that as an improvement. One up. We will discuss the emptiness of the improvement in due course but let the Member for Serangoon have a little glory. "(3) The ex officio and nominated Membership of the Legislative Assembly to be abolished." Same. "(4) The number of elected Members of the Assembly to be increased to 50." It is now 51. Mark him up two. "(5) The ex officio Ministers to be abolished". Same. "(6) The portfolio of the Chief Secretary to be transferred to an elected Minister." Same. "(7) The portfolio of the Financial Secretary to be transferred to an elected Minister of Finance." Same. "(8) Responsibility for the Department at present assigned to the Attorney-General to be transferred to an elected Minister." Same. "(9) The Attorney-General to be an official, and to continue to be independent in relation to the initiation, conduct and discontinuance of prosecutions." Same. "(10) The Chief Minister instead of, as at present, the Governor to preside at meetings of the Council of Ministers." Same. "(11) The High Commissioner to receive copies of Council agenda, papers, minutes and conclusions at the same time as Ministers." Now, it is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Same. "(12) Responsibility for External Defence to be vested in the United Kingdom Government." Same. "(13) Responsibility for External Affairs to be vested in the United Kingdom Government (but see footnote (ii) )." Same. Now clause (14) and I do ask your attention. It is not the same. It is much less, radically less. Clause (14) reads: "(14) A Defence and Security Council" [not Internal Security Council, Sir,] "to be established, consisting of the High Commissioner, the Chief Minister, two other representatives of the United Kingdom Government and two other representatives of the Singapore Government" [that is, three on each side]. "The High Commissioner (or in his absence the person exercising the functions of High Commissioner) to be Chairman of the Council." Same. "... and to have a casting vote." No casting vote this time. Chalk that up. "The High Commissioner and the Chief Minister respectively to nominate the representatives of the United Kingdom and the Singapore Government (and alternates) and both to be enabled in their respective spheres to call in attendance on the Council any persons from whom advice or assistance may be required in the deliberations of the Council." Now, Sir: "The Council's functions to be : -

And that is better.

I will say this a little later on that we asked for and obtained the right that this power should not be exercised except by an affirmative motion in the House of Commons with its complete publicity. I can understand members of the Merdeka Mission squirming with discomfort at having these points pressed home. Let them squirm whether by grin or by act. What have they the power to do, Sir, by Order in Council? Have they the power to interfere in our internal security? This is the power we have, Sir: "(i) to make provision for the fulfilment of their responsibilities [not in internal affairs, Sir] in relation to external defence and external affairs on the basis of the clause set out in SCT. (56) 9 with such amendments as may be agreed." Because we have created a terrific noise, Sir, when they defined external defence and external affairs and we said, "You are impinging on internal security." They said, "All right, we will agree to further amendments." You do not have to ask anybody's memory on the subject. It is here: "with such amendments as may be agreed". "In particular Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to agree to the following: -

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to object to an hon. Member of this House making an unseemly exhibition of himself but would it not facilitate the hearing of other Members of this Assembly to know what is actually being argued and the points which are being pressed if they were put over more lucidly?

It is not a point of order.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not unaccustomed in this Assembly to exhibitions by the Member for Tanjong Pagar whereby he seeks to make his points quite by, shall we say, mistaking the point. Now, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar does not understand: I do not seek to impress him but let me say this to you, Sir, and to other Members of the House. I saw the exhibition of the P.A.P. through its unfortunate Treasurer, Sir, who on one evening - I think it was 18th March - said that he fully supported Mr Marshall's demand for elections in August. It was published in the papers and in the next evening the pathetic animal came out with a memorandum saying, "I am sorry. I made an error. My Party changed its mind. We are definitely against elections." When I saw that, Sir, that a man in the P.A.P. has no room for personal integrity of thought but must toe the Party line, I, since then, Sir, although I knew a little of it before, shall certainly never seek to influence the P.A.P. with argument. They can only be influenced the way the Colonial Office is influenced and that is by superior force. Sir, if I may resume. Now, Sir, we have seen in what the British Government offered us last year that there was one Defence and Security Council - one only, Sir, and one which we screamed about - and the hon. Member strenuously defended the rejection when we came back to this House and reported it and that Defence and Security Council had merely advisory powers in respect of internal security, it could discuss matters of common concern regarding external affairs and external defence and decide any borderline questions. It had to receive and consider regular reports on internal security and it could make recommendations to the Singapore Government and Her Majesty's Government. So its powers were of a purely advisory character, note the nigger in the woodpile (clause 16) which says: "Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to have power by Order in Council-

Order. I think I must remind the hon. Member that when he uses the second person "you", he probably means the Delegation and not the Speaker!

Thank you, Sir. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask you to turn to paragraph 27 (h) and (i) on page 7 of this Report, and see what else we gave this no longer "Defence and Security" Council, but this blatantly "Internal Security" Council with powers to maintain the efficiency of all organs of government. What further powers did we give it, Sir? It says: "(h) A vote on any matter within the Council's functions should be regarded as a binding decision, to which immediate effect should be given by the authorities responsible." Do you know what that means, Sir? It means that the Assembly we will have here, Sir, or anywhere else, will be just a puppet. The government will be run from the board room. It is true there will be three members of the Singapore Government, one from the Federation and three from the United Kingdom, but, Sir, we will be handing ourselves over to dictatorship of a hidden and secret body. There is to be a Federation Minister; so what? I am very happy that we are to have a Federation Minister to co-operate with us, but is anybody suggesting that he is the angel Gabriel? Or is anybody suggesting that sometimes the Singapore Government would not like to evade its responsibilities for doing something by making that Council do it? Is anybody suggesting that, in the light of what we have seen happen, we are going to be any less colonial in status under that regime, with the secret board-room meeting taking decisions which over-rule anything that happens here? What kind of government are we going to have? Are we going to be puppets with puppet masters in the board-room? Then, Sir, paragraph 27 (i) says: "If there is any disagreement as to whether a particular matter was of internal security, and therefore within the functions of the Council, the matter should be discussed and decided by the Council", and in respect of all these decisions they are binding and have the effect of law. Finally, paragraph 27 (k) , Sir - "If the Singapore Government failed to meet any requirement...". Supposing the three gentlemen say, "We do not like it and we are sorry that the Federation Minister has agreed with the United Kingdom and we will not co-operate"? What happens? - "If the Singapore Government failed to meet any requirement placed on them by a decision of the Council, the Chairman of the Council would be empowered so to inform the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and to advise him to make an Order to secure fulfilment of the requirement." And what does he do? It seems fair enough to advise him, but listen to this - this is British advice - "The Yang di-Pertuan Negara would then be obliged-" obliged- "to make the Order, which would have the force of law in Singapore." Sir, we will be having our Head of State doing the dirty work for the Colonial Office and taking the blame. Who is responsible? - the Internal Security Council for which we ask. It is not a question, Sir, of whether it is going to be abused or not going to be abused; it means in fact that democracy is dead, that there is a dictatorship of seven behind the scenes to do just what they please, when they please and how they please, and that their will, by a majority of four to three, is law. That is our democracy, Oxford style. [Interruption]. Sir, I am sorry to hold you up; I seem to have mislaid a document. Sir, I ask that I may be permitted to come back to it later if I can find the document from which I seek to read to you. I would ask the Assembly to note this, Sir, and if I am wrong, I trust that the Hon. the Attorney-General will tell me how I am wrong, because this is a serious question; if I err, let the Assembly have the truth. Sir, not only have we surrendered when this carrot finally reaches the mouth of the donkey, not only have we surrendered our control over internal security to this board of seven dictators, but we are creating a third board to control the new Assembly of Singapore. This is something new, something which I do not think is necessary; but look, Sir, at paragraph 37. What is my objection to these secret boards? It is very simple, Sir. If you divide power in a way that the person exercising it has no responsibility towards the people - you cannot fix him personally with the responsibility, you cannot pin him down and make him answer - then in point of fact the area of his power is completely excluded from the jurisdiction of the Assembly and the people's representatives. In respect of this Internal Security Council, I say to you, Sir, the people of Singapore know that it means that our entire internal security position will be completely outside the control of this Assembly, that it will be in the hands of this group of dictators, and that we can never know their decisions because it is a secret organisation, a secret council. Let me give you an example, Sir, how these things can happen and how the people of Singapore and their representatives can lose any sense of initiative and self-respect by making somebody else do the dirty work. When I became a "dictator", when we were in office, for about three weeks, Sir, the question arose as to whether we were to renew the Emergency Regulations. Now, Sir, it was part of our platform to review and repeal them so much as was necessary, and at that time there was a very strong movement for complete repeal. Now, Sir, it was part of my duty (the duty of the Chief Secretary, it is true) to investigate the position; and I may have been wrong, but I think I was right, I believed that it was absolutely essential for our way of life that some sort of powers of detention should be retained. Naturally, I was very embarrassed early in my tenure of office to have to meet strong and bitter opposition. And I remember, Sir, that Sir John Nicoll said, "You repeal the Emergency Regulations in the Assembly and your voters will be satisfied. I will then reintroduce them by virtue of my special reserve powers, and we will both be satisfied." Sir, if I were to meet Sir John again, I would apologise to him for being as rude as I was. I thought he was insulting me and the people of Singapore. After reading this document, Sir, particularly the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about the ban on subversion being an undemocratic ban, I feel that all Sir John did was to think that I was just a normal politician. Sir, that is the kind of thing that will happen again and again - unscrupulous politicians will not take responsibility for necessary acts which may temporarily be unpopular, but will pass the buck to the Internal Security Council, thereby constantly maintaining the sort of tension and the sort of antagonism which we see created the cause for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. In addition to it, Sir, as I was pointing out to you, we are to have an InterDepartmental Council, and I would like to read paragraph 37: "It was clear that this practical division in the handling of external relations," external relations- "together with the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for defence, made it necessary that there should be continuous consultation between the two Governments on the many points at which their interests and responsibilities would touch or overlap. We had agreed upon the establishment of the Internal Security Council, but noted that its competence was limited strictly to matters of internal security." Why? Last year, there was no necessity for this. Then, we did not ask for an additional council. Why this year? Why, except that they want a further point of control. I read on: "37. Her Majesty's Government therefore proposed that there should be established some purely consultative-" but let us see how purely consultative it is- "- some purely consultative machinery through which the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Singapore should consult upon and discuss all matters or problems affecting the Singapore Government arising from Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for external affairs and defence. The Singapore Delegation indicated that they regarded defence and external affairs (save where the latter had been delegated to Singapore) as being matters entirely within the United Kingdom sphere, for which the Singapore Government could not constitutionally accept any responsibility: they nevertheless recognised the need for some consultative arrangements through which Her Majesty's Government could consult Singapore's interests, or make known any requirements arising from their responsibilities involving action on the part of the Singapore Government. "38. We therefore agreed to establish, by administrative action... an Inter-Governmental Committee...". Now, Sir, this is a purely "consultative" organ - you will remember. Sir, paragraph 37 says it is "purely consultative". But the last sentence slipped into paragraph 39 says: "Except to the extent to which the Council decided that a matter was one of internal security, it would be the duty of the Government of Singapore to give effect to Her Majesty's Government's requirements" in this Inter-Departmental Committee. So, Sir, we, the Government of Singapore, are to be under the orders of this Inter-Departmental Committee of a "consultative" nature to give effect to Her Majesty's Government's wishes in the realms of external affairs and external defence. Let us read down, Sir. Paragraph 40 says: "The Conference further agreed that if the Singapore Government were to fail to carry out their duty to meet such requirements, the procedure mentioned in paragraph 27 (k) "- and remember the words, Sir? - the Yang di-Pertuan Negara would then be obliged to make an Order on the advice of the Chairman of the Council, on the advice of the British adviser, and this advice of the British adviser he shall be obliged to take- " the procedure mentioned in paragraph 27 (k) , which relates to the implementation of the Internal Security Council, is applicable in this case also. When the requirement related to a Bill before the Singapore Legislature, which in the view of Her Majesty's Government would prejudice the discharge by Her Majesty's Government of their responsibilities, the Chairman of the Security council would also have the power to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to reserve the Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should then be obliged to do so." That is the position, Sir. Not even on the advice of this Inter-Departmental Council, Sir, but if in Her Majesty's Government's discretion it is deemed by Her Majesty's Government that a Bill before this Assembly is of a character which prejudices the discharge of Her Majesty's Government's responsibility - that is wide enough - then that Bill must be reserved by our Head of State for Her Majesty's Government to consider, for Her Majesty's Government's pleasure. Sir, we are nearing the moment of interruption and although I have much more to dwell upon, I feel that it may be appropriate at this juncture to introduce an amendment which Members can consider. I would ask first, Sir, as a matter of information, whether I am correct, as I think I am, in saying that I may, after moving that amendment, proceed after the moment of interruption, Sir?

The Member for Cairnhill can indicate the terms of his amendment at the end of his speech before he moves the amendment.

Thank you, Sir. The terms of my amendment, Sir, are to leave all the words after "(1) "-I am changing the wording in "(l) "-and to insert the following; that it "regretfully takes note of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957; and nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution on the basis that all persons qualified by residence for citizenship shall be entitled to vote at the first elections; and". I leave "(2)" alone, Sir, not because there is any question of a change of mind. To me, it is a statement for which I have some contempt because, first of all, it does not accurately state the facts, and, secondly, I am in favour of a ban on subversives participating in politics. But I am not in favour of Britain interfering by making the provision a part of our constitution. Sir, I think I would like, in so far as there is time, to make clear one aspect of this question, and to interpose an explanation of what I mean by "nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution on the basis that all persons qualified by residence for citizenship shall be entitled to vote at the first elections". Sir, the new constitution is a colonial constitution. It gives us nothing to crow about, but it does give us an opportunity for a fresh election for a bigger House, and I feel, Sir, that there has been a tremendous maturing of the people politically. I also feel, for myself, Sir, that this House has now, shall we say, expended its utility, and that it is in fact rapidly becoming nothing other than a vested interest which seeks its own perpetuation. I feel, Sir, that however unfortunate and deformed the new constitution is, however much of an evil hunchback, it is better than the existing one because it will give us a greater opportunity in our struggle to end our colonial status. The quicker we get it, the quicker we end it, and that is something to remember. It is patent to the people of Singapore that from this Assembly they can expect nothing more; they can expect nothing more except an effort to perpetuate their sitting here. The reason given for not holding elections, Sir, is that we have 260,000 citizens, or potential citizens, and that we should wait until these people are given an opportunity to vote. I shall go into somewhat longer detail a little later about the validity of that excuse. But what I do say is that we can do it now if we are sincere, Sir - and this one is really an attempt to resurrect Lazarous. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, a naturalised Malayan, worked with vigour and integrity and ability in assisting the people of Singapore in the administration of their government, Sir, but he cannot know- and he cannot be expected to know- how we feel about this matter of racial domination and racial inferiority. And the honourable gentleman from Tanjong Pagar, who is singing in Oxford accents the dirge of democracy in this House- he is in a particularly fortunate position; and having attained it, he does not have to worry about whether he or his family should ever feel the inferiority that the rest of the people suffer as a result of colonial rule. But, Sir, let us go back to the question of what can be done. Everybody tell us anxiously, whether it is true or not, they say they are anxious, anxious that 270,000 domiciled aliens should be given immediate citizenship. I say, Sir, I will give it before the new constitution is introduced - I will give it now! Section 42 of the Colony Order in Council - I am sorry, Sir, I am a bit disorganised this afternoon - no, section 43, Sir, says: "The Elected Members of the Assembly shall be persons qualified for election in accordance with the provisions of this Order"- that does not apply- "and elected in the manner provided by, or in pursuance of, any law enacted under this Order or in pursuance of the Singapore Colony (Electoral Provisions) Order in Council, 1954." So we can make our own laws for election purposes, and, in fact, we have made Law No. 26 of 1954, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, whereby we provide for persons who can vote. Now, Sir, I say that under section 5 of that Ordinance, we have the qualifications for holding elections. Right? Now, we also have the power, if we so want, to disqualify criminals (have we not disqualified the undemocratic gentlemen in the democratic Changi jail?). We have disqualified those who are under sentence of imprisonment, are of unsound mind, corrupt, etc. But under section 5, Sir, we can even make infants elected if we so like. What is there, then, to prevent us from amending section 5? We can do it in two days without a Certificate of Urgency - amending section 5 to say "includes all persons domiciled in Singapore or resident in Singapore for the past 10 years"; for the first elections only - I do not ask that they be made permanent; but the idea is that, for the first elections, we want to give the vote to these people. We do not want colonial rule (nobody likes that), but we have got to suffer it for two years, may be three, four, or more, because we must have these alien Chinese on the list of voters. You do not hope for Lennox-Boyd to put them on; put them on here, now! I will support it. Why cannot we amend section 5 (1) and say "all persons resident in Singapore for the past 10 years"? Right, it takes you two days to pass that. Then, oh, how long does it take to get them on the electoral roll? You see, Sir, those who have goodwill can get things done quickly, but those who pretend, will find a lot of objection. One of the objections is: How long will it take to get them on the electoral roll? Six weeks, I say, because, gentlemen, nobody has got to go and register! The beauty of this suggestion is that we have the Identity Card system - bless the Identity Card system; we have the Identity Card system and all the names are registered. Let the Chief Secretary correct me - he has got all the information and it should not take more than six weeks to pick out everybody who has 10 years' residence in Singapore. So it takes you six weeks to get your electoral roll out after two days, and that makes 44 days. Let us imagine the miracle taking place - I always have faith in miracles, Sir! After all -[Interruption]- you laugh, but did not the Chief Minister yesterday accept our motions on corruption? Is he not perhaps going to accept the amendment to the Clerical Workers Bill that we should legalise strikes? Amen to that. Sir, why should not we believe in miracles? I believe in miracles; I am hoping that this effort to resuscitate Lazarous will be successful. Sir, I wish to go back to the people of Singapore. In any division in Singapore, I am prepared to stand against the gentleman who has the majority of votes, and I say to him: I will go to his constituency if he will go back to his constituency, and I will challenge him there-

Accepted!

Order. Does the Member for Cairnhill consider this really relevant?

I heard him say, Sir, that he accepted it.

I rule it as irrelevant.

Sir, I will say that we can amend this Elections Ordinance, and provide for domiciled aliens to be on the electoral roll in six weeks. We can have it open for objections for another six weeks, and we can be ready in three months. It is to be remembered that though Mr Lennox-Boyd promised us a State of Singapore last year, we are now having a new constitution by Order in Council; so we do not have to worry about going to Parliament - we are remaining a colony by Order in Council, and an Order in Council can easily be prepared within three months. There is no need of our worrying about an amendment to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act for the simple reason that this Bill is not providing immediately for aliens to become citizens - it is providing to give them the right to vote at the first elections. And in due course - as the Chief Minister said, it takes time to amend the Nationality Status Act, and it takes time to open the registration bureau, it takes time to register 230,000 people and we should have at least a year - (and I myself agree they should have two years) - they can register, after having voted for the new Assembly and the new constitution, as citizens of a new State instead of registering as citizens of this still Colony of Singapore. Now, Sir, this will be objected to - I shall have to answer objections, since I am the mover of an amendment and I have no right of reply - it will be objected that those aliens will have to take the oath of allegiance. That is the only objection of some validity which I can foresee, and the answer is very simply this: if a man is evil-minded, if his loyalty is elsewhere, no oath of allegiance can make him change. But I do not believe that there are many of those people among the 270,000 whom we seek to attract as our citizens. I know them and I say I believe that they are men of stability, men of sincerity, that they are loyal to this land; and I cannot envisage any real danger in giving them the right to vote in the first elections before they can take out citizenship papers, the right to vote for the first elections without taking out any oaths, without registering themselves, just by virtue of the fact that they have been 10 years in Singapore in accordance with their Identity Card registration form which indicates their residence. Sir, it is simplicity itself, just as it is simplicity itself whereby the Singapore Delegation has destroyed and suspended merdeka by that paragraph 27. I say it is simplicity itself to restore life into this constitution and still give an opportunity to this nascent democracy to take form, by making it possible for all these people to vote, and to vote now. 3.45 p.m.

The Chief Minister rose-

Mr Chief Minister, is it a business motion?

Yes Sir. Sir, before the moment of interruption, may I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 7 (2), That this Assembly, at its rising today, do stand adjourned to tomorrow, Saturday.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, at its rising today, do stand adjourned to tomorrow, Saturday.

Debate resumed.

Will the Member for Cairnhill please continue?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will say this. Last year, I frankly did not consider that we had failed. We were seeking, and seeking with sincerity, a tremendous advance, something that was in the nature of a Holy Grail for us. Sir, a setback and a failure at the first trial is not a failure. I do not consider that we failed. We had bulldozed our way to a very short distance of the goal. The ball was still in motion; the position, Sir, was excellent; and the prospects were perfect. But today, Sir, today I consider I had failed, and this is my failure: This Report before the House, the subject of the motion, this is my failure, because you cannot go back on what they have signed away, not at the moment, not until this abortion is in force and a new people, the new people, the new representatives of Singapore, have the opportunity themselves to undo what the Mission has done, if in fact it is not too late. I myself fear this, Sir: I fear that my motion will be lost. I have seen, and I intend to prove to this Assembly, the lack of enthusiasm on the part of Government for an early election. I believe that it will continue or seek to continue in office until the full length of its legal term in April 1959. I believe it will seek to continue in office thereafter by Order in Council of the Colonial Office. And I believe that, thereby, the seeds of democracy which we sought to nurture will wither and die, and that the alternative, an alternative that bodes ill for Singapore, will then be the only means of change. Sir, I did not accept what I was given and I was not sorry; I did not accept what we were given because I believed that more was necessary and more could be obtained. I have faith in the men of Singapore today. Sir, if, on the other hand, it is true that the reason given for the delay in new elections is to give a vote to those new citizens - I shall deal with the question tomorrow - we can achieve that now. And I say we should achieve that now, by simply amending the Singapore Legislative Assembly Ordinance, that we could quite easily hold elections in July. In the new Assembly at least we will have a fresh outlook, at least we can say that the people have put in democratically elected persons who remain in office for serving the people and not merely for purposes of holding power. It can be done; it can be done today. It can be done and it should be done. If we want to maintain and attract respect for democratic processes, which means that the people have their own form of government, which should be their government, one which they are prepared to accept - we can only do that by giving them an opportunity for an election. Otherwise, Sir, if we refuse them this, we refuse them an improvement in their colonial status which the new constitution does give. Although it is a colonial constitution, it does improve the conditions of struggle of the people, their opportunity to make their voice heard. If we refuse this amendment, it means that we intend to deprive them of the opportunity to have those better conditions now, and that we intend to impose our desire to continue sitting in this Assembly and holding office for the people of Singapore irrespective of their welfare and wishes. If we do that, we deal a mortal blow to any hope of respect for democratic processes. Now, Sir, I have pointed out that my main argument, my main objection, to this constitution was that we will be handing over internal security to a body outside the control of and not responsible to the people of Singapore. To that extent, Sir, it is a farce to speak about self-government with all powers and privileges. In fact, this is a radical alteration of a greatly prejudicial character to the one Britain offered us last year. And in addition to this, we now have a so-called Consultative Inter-Departmental Council which will have a right to order our Head of State to enforce its will, and a High Commissioner who will have power to order and to enforce his will in respect of matters which they deem to be within their realm of external affairs. Now, the second objection of ours which I raised was that this was an essentially colonial constitution. Sir, our original hopes were for a status of freedom which would have the respect of our fellow human beings. Sir, last year, we said in our memorandum to the British Government - and this the P.A.P. also signed - on page 22 we said that we have every right to be as independent as any other member of the Commonwealth in spite of our area and population. We see paragraph 4 at page 22 and then, Sir, at page 47 - on which also the P.A.P. has now changed its views and said we are too small to be independent - this is what we said: (This was delivered to the British Government on 1st May, 1956): "(3) We are firmly convinced that the people of Singapore have matured to a point where it is essential for their healthy growth that they should be free to shape their destiny. Our geographical position and racial content offer an inspiring challenge and unique opportunity to make our contribution to the concept of inter-racial amity and cooperation and the growth of democratic institutions. We can be adequate to our opportunities only if we are free of controls, however well meant, which prevent us from finding our feet through the normal process of trial and error with all the risks inherent in living." We can even now -

Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir. Remaining items on the Order Paper read, and set down for tomorrow.

4.01 p.m.

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

I second the motion.

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