I am sorry, Sir; it might have changed the character of the debate. It would not require any delay in working out the Order in Council, Sir. My amendment calls for an earlier implementation of this constitution. Sir, I will not deal further with it. Yesterday, Sir, I was on the subject of my main disagreement with this constitution because of paragraph 26 (ii) of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April, 1957. It deprives the people of Singapore and their elected representatives of control over internal security matters, since it gives the Internal Security Council the functions and the powers "to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security". And paragraphs 27 (h), (i) and (k), which compel the Singapore Government to accept the decision of this seven-man Council, Sir. Now, what is exactly the difference, I was asked, and perhaps I have not made it clear, so I will give two or three examples. Sir, if we had accepted last year's constitution, there would have been only an Advisory Defence and Security Council. There was nothing wrong with that. As I have repeatedly said, I am willing to learn from everybody and consult with everybody, but it was reserved to Her Majesty in Council to make powers by Order in Council in matters of external affairs and external defence, but with a definition which impinged on internal security to some extent. Sir, what is the position today? As you say, we give away completely internal security to this Council which is not responsible to the people's elected representatives. Take, for example, Sir, supposing under last year's constitution the Assembly decides to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into allegations of brutal assaults by police officers on citizens. Now under last year's constitution, Sir, there can be no doubt whatsoever but that the Defence and Security Council could only protest to the Singapore Government and advise against such inadvisable action which would weaken the morale of the police force; but it could not take any action, nor could Her Majesty in Council take any action, because quite obviously an inquiry into allegations of police brutality is not external affairs or external defence. But what about the new constitution that is proposed to come into force in the never never? Suppose under the new constitution the Assembly says it wants an inquiry into police brutality. "Ah," says somebody (whoever it may be), "we do not like it." Then it goes to the Internal Security Council, and this Council has three British members on it who would naturally avoid any suggestion of bringing this out into the open, and they have also - this is the improvement in the machinery - the Minister for the Federation. But let us assume that the Minister for the Federation - and it is fair to assume that, seeing that there is no such inquiry in the Federation and perhaps the Federation would not like to start that kind of a smell - decides to support the British representatives. Then a perfectly legitimate desire of the people to investigate brutality by the police is blocked - even that little thing is taken out. Supposing, Sir, we want to amend the Banishment Ordinance. Under the constitution last year the Defence and Security Council could say to the Singapore Government: "It is very unwise of you to revise this Ordinance even though it might be 42 years old. It is very unwise." But it could not do more. Her Majesty in Council could not very well refuse us our amendment because it has no power in those matters in blocking legislation. This is purely an internal matter. But under the new constitution you go ahead and ask for a revision of the Banishment Ordinance, and the police communicate with the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner will call in the Internal Security Council and they say, "Tut, tut, tut, tut, a lot of gangsters, you know. It is better not to touch this Banishment Ordinance." Well, then, we depend on the Minister for the Federation. But the Federation, Sir, has the same Banishment Ordinance as ourselves and is not anxious to improve it. So can you expect the Minister for the Federation to seek to be more progressive in Singapore than he is in the Federation? So we find that a perfectly legitimate desire on the part of the people of Singapore, who have a very large proportion of aliens, blocked on this simple matter. You see the differences, Sir? You see how much we have given away under the new constitution as compared to the old? Let us take another one, much nearer home, and of which so much is being made by the P.A.P. Supposing the new Assembly under last year's constitution were to move a motion to say, "Let us release the Member for Bukit Timah. He has had enough of a holiday in the democratic Changi jail, and let us release Devan Nair." Of course, the Defence and Security Council would say, quite naturally, "Look here, boys, you know you are releasing two men who are confirmed subversives." But they could not do anything. Her Majesty in Council cannot interfere because, quite patently, even under their definition this is not a matter of external affairs and external defence. But under the new constitution this will come immediately before the Internal Security Council. And do you think the Federation Minister, for example, is going to vote in support of the Members here for release of subversives when that is not happening in the Federation? You see how much we have given away, Sir. We had more than two-thirds of internal security in our hands under the constitution which we were offered - not that we were satisfied with it - but it was offered by the British Government last year in Annexure L. Today we have given away the whole control of internal security. I say to you that these examples indicate that to suggest that the new constitution provides for the status of a self-governing State, with all the rights, privileges and powers thereto appurtenant in internal affairs is wholly inaccurate, Sir, entirely false. What in fact the new constitution provides for when it comes into effect is the creation of a colonial State without the ultimate control in every matter connected with internal affairs. That is what you have. Sir, my second objection indicated to you yesterday is that it is essentially a colonial constitution and I shall mention briefly why. I have already indicated to you, Sir, that internal security is now completely out of our hands. I would also point out that the Colonial Office is still in charge of this colony under the present Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution and under the new Lennox-Boyd-Yew Hock Constitution. A symbol of this colonial position as compared to last year, when they were prepared to offer us more, is that this year the new constitution will be by Order in Council and not by Act of Parliament, Sir, and if I might refer you to page 14, paragraph 52 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference of this year, which says: "The Constitution itself would be contained in an Order of Her Majesty in Council, supplemented by Royal Instructions." But what did they offer us last year, Sir? If I might refer you to last year's Report, Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956 at page 69, at the bottom: "In implementation of the undertakings embodied in this constitution Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce a State of Singapore Bill into Parliament to provide for the surrender of powers to legislate by Order in Council (or otherwise) under the British Settlements Acts." So we were at least offered some sort of an Act last year by the British. Now, Sir, as regards the date. Sir, why should I bother about the date if, in fact, the constitution is a bad one? Why should I worry if it comes into force? Why should I want for Singapore a tiga suku busoh merdeka? That is a fair question, and I think the answer is a very simple one, Sir. The people of Singapore, through the hands of their representatives, have now handed themselves, bound and gagged, into the power of the Colonial Office. This Assembly is committed - I know the Chief Minister does not mind being committed and changing his mind - but this Assembly through its Merdeka Mission has committed itself to this constitution. Nothing more can be expected from this Assembly. I think that is fair enough. The new constitution, if it is brought into force, and the quicker it is brought into force, then the quicker it can be destroyed. It will have 51 Members as against our 25 now. It will have completely newly elected people more in touch with the people of Singapore, and they at least will not be bound - they are now bound by the action of their colleagues. They at least can say, "No, we do not want this horrible fate you have given us. Our predecessors have tied us to it, but please, we would like to renegotiate, and renegotiate forthwith." I thought. Sir, of moving a motion in this Assembly to reject it completely, but where would I get? All the Parties are in it. At least I am hoping that the Parties will agree to the early implementation so that we can get on with the job of cleaning up the mess that they have made. That is why I am worried about the date. Sir, I said what did we ask for by way of date last year and what was agreed, because the Chief Minister gave an assurance to this House he would accept nothing less than what was offered last year, and in fact it was the scandalous rumour-mongers who suggested he would. If you will look, Sir, at Annexure H of Command Paper 31 of 1956, at page 50: "Though our draft Independence Act does not specifically provide for the citizenship proposals incorporated in our original memorandum nor set out a date, we wish it to be clear that we consider April 1957, two years after the coming into force of the Rendel Constitution, would be an appropriate date for the inauguration of the new constitution. Furthermore, the constitution, which must necessarily follow any lndependence Act, should provide for citizenship rights in accordance with the proposals incorporated in our original memorandum SCT. (56) 5 and agreed to by all Parties." We asked for April 1957, and the Mission knows - I think it was made public that the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies did suggest informally that perhaps if we were successful, we should try and keep in step with the Federation and make it August, and the delegation was generally of the view, as an act of courtesy and goodwill towards our sister territory, that it was quite prepared to accept August 1957 for our new constitution. Sir, after I resigned, and as a result of some very unpleasant rumours that were going round, I had an interview with the Chief Minister and I wrote him a letter on the 21st of June, 1956, somewhat prophetic in character. However, I shall spare him from reading it completely. It was written, Sir, specifically for such an unhappy occasion as this and with the intent that it might be published. I shall read to you, Sir, only a portion and if the Chief Minister wishes to correct anything that might be inaccurate, I shall pass him a copy. I said in the third paragraph: "I was glad to hear your repeated and earnest assurance that there was no question of your waiting till next year for reopening of the Merdeka talks and that you were at one with me in visualising the urgency of early reopening of the Constitutional Conference. I understood you to say that in July you will be having informal discussions with the Colonial Secretary and not later than December or January next there will be a full mission. I think it unwise to wait as late as December or January, nor do I see it necessary. It seems to me that after your July talks September can be the date on which the conference can be resumed. However, the question of tactics is not one in which I seek to interfere, so long as it does not assume a vital character which would destroy or gravely prejudice our Party's movement and the country's welfare." I came back, Sir, from a four-month trip abroad made mainly in order to leave the Government a free hand and not to seem to be interfering, and in order to enable it to gain the confidence of the Colonial Office, which seems to treat me as a wild animal. When I came back, certain events transpired, and as a result of a special conference convened of the General Council of the Labour Front, the Chief Minister made a statement in this House. The statement, Sir, is in our Hansard of the 5th of November, 1956, at col. 421, and I quote: "I am therefore not yet in a position to name a definite date for the resumption of talks, but this Government has decided that if the talks are successful the new constitution should come into being in August next year, with fresh elections. The new constitution should come into being in August next year with fresh elections." I am not repeating it, Sir. He actually repeated that phrase twice. "This is in reply to the accusation of our opponents that this Government is anxious to remain in office." Sir, I followed that statement of his with a question so that there should be no misunderstanding - to me it is a matter of some vital importance - and on the same column, Sir, I asked: "If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand the Chief Minister to say that it is the firm intention of the Government to seek full and fresh elections, if the constitutional talks are successful, not later than August next, irrespective of the date of the talks?" To this, the Chief Minister replied: "Sir, the hon. Member understands aright.' That is clear enough - a clear and formal undertaking to this House that if the talks were successful and agreement was reached, there would be elections not later than August of this year, irrespective of the time when the talks were being held. Sir, despite this unequivocal promise, there were still ugly rumours abroad, and on the 9th of January, 1957, I asked a further question, col. 1205: "If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that both sides of the House and the country are happy and relieved to learn of the bright prospects for merdeka; but will the Chief Minister inform us of the exact date - I think it has never been made known to the House - for the conference to be held, and reassure us that the holding of fresh elections in August 1957 is not only a possibility but will, in fact, if the talks are successful, take place? The Chief Minister, in reply, said: "The talks will reopen on the 11th of March, which I understand is the Ides of March. As far as the election goes, the Government is committed to holding elections in August this year." "committed", Sir, is a big word. It is a firm undertaking and it means that irrespective of the Opposition's attitude, this is Government's commitment and this is what is going to happen; or if Government fails to carry it out, then it will resign. Sir, on the 14th of February, 1957, two months ago, in his office at about 6.30 p.m. on this subject too, I drew his attention again to certain rumours and he said to me, "Everything is in the bag. The Colonial Office is resigned to August, but it says that it might be necessary to have two or three weeks more for the new Act." I said that was all right with me - early August or September we have waited. That was the 14th of February, Sir, whilst I was a member of the constitutional conference. No question of postponement at all, no question of postponement right through till after the calling of this Assembly which I learned of on my return. Sir, if Lennox-Boyd is resigned to August but might need early September, the point is very simple. Since there is no Act of Parliament necessary - in fact, we can have it at any time, we can have it in July - the question of giving the status to our citizens is a matter that can follow afterwards. It is very interesting now, Sir, to know what he said on the 5th of March, 1957, despite his firm committal of the Government. I am reading from Hansard of the 5th of March, col. 1459, the Chief Minister's speech: "It was felt that the people affected should enjoy these rights and exercise their votes in the choice of a new Government for the State of Singapore. To achieve this, the conference fully realised that this would mean that it would be impossible for the general elections to take place in August this year to which the Government is committed. The British Nationality Act will require an amendment by the British Parliament. Citizenship laws will have to be introduced in Singapore. A reasonable length of time of, say, one year should be given to persons affected to make application if we really mean them to enjoy these rights. New electoral rolls will have to be prepared under the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. All these take time." And he speaks truthfully. "I told the All-Party Conference that I did not wish to influence them on this matter-" Or that he was committed to August, and his Government was committed to August, he did not wish to influence the All-Party Conference in this matter- "as I did not wish it to be said that the Government was seeking a way out of its promise to hold elections in August this year. In view of the great importance of the matter, the All-Party Conference felt that the All-Party Mission should seek the views of this Assembly and be guided accordingly. I would therefore ask hon. Members to express their views to guide us on the line to take with the Colonial Office on our citizenship proposals. The Government does not intend to ignore its commitments, but is prepared to listen to the views and advice of hon. Members." But there was no substantive motion before the House on which hon. Members could give their views. "The Government does not intend to ignore its commitments" means Government either fulfils its promise or gets out if it cannot. Sir, we have a story more than 2,000 years ago of a man called Pontius Pilate who was committed to do justice by the State of Rome in a land called Jerusalem. He too washed his hands and said to the people, "I am committed to doing things but let your will be done." Sir, we have here a Government committed to a course of action which they very readily surrendered. Now, Sir, let us look at column 1461: "If the concensus of view is for citizenship rights to be introduced ahead of the new Constitution, then the responsibility for delaying the general elections should rest with this Assembly, and the Government should not be blamed for postponing it. Under these circumstances, the date of coming into force of the new Constitution will have to be synchronised with the date of the general elections." That is putting very neatly and ambiguously the truth that if you want this, you will have to postpone merdeka, or at least what we thought was merdeka, now. Then last of all. Sir, he said at column 1487: "After that will come the preparation of the electoral rolls. But before these can be prepared, the delimitation of boundaries has to be considered. In this, I think we would like to have an all-party committee on the job as soon as possible." That is rather interesting because the Chief Minister knows and Party leaders know that there is a committee on delimitation of boundaries, that the committee has sat, Sir, and the committee has made its report for 51 divisions. Now, why is it necessary to have a new committee with members of the different Parties sitting on it? Sir, we are told that there is suddenly heartburning desire on the part of all Parties to see that the 270,000 domiciled aliens should get citizenship and should vote. First, let us look at the principle. Even if it is true for a moment, Sir, the principle enunciated is this and it is a very communal principle too, that 1,200,000 of the population of Singapore should not enjoy any improvement in their constitutional status for an indefinite period until a minority has achieved a right to vote it is a sort of dog-in-the-manger attitude: 'Whilst I cannot get it, you will not get it.' But, Sir, let us look at the Rendel Constitution. Did not the Rendel Constitution, which did not give the citizenship rights to our Chinese domiciled aliens, benefit them by giving an opportunity to their fellow human beings (the people of Singapore) to make their voice heard? Would not the new constitution with its improvements of some kind be also to the advantage of those who have not got the right to vote today? Why should we all be deprived of these improvements for an indefinite period? "Because they must have the honour and the privilege of being the first to vote," but, Sir, it is very interesting to see this sudden earnest desire on the part of the Parties concerned to give the citizenship vote or rights to these domiciled aliens. I think you remember, Sir, that as early as I think June of 1955, some two years ago, there were all-community meetings which I called at which I sought to obtain agreement on the need to grant citizenship rights to our domiciled aliens but U.M.N.O. and the P.A.P. strenuously resisted on the ground that I would be creating two types of citizens: one which was a British subject with a right to vote, and one a Singapore citizen with a right to vote but an inferior citizen carrying no national status. That was blocked. We were afraid that if we passed it and sacrificed U.M.N.O.'s part in the Coalition we would be vetoed by His Excellency the Governor. We went on, Sir, to see Mr Lennox-Boyd in August 1955 on the subject. We pleaded with him then. We went in December, Sir, to plead with him on the subject and I think it is pertinent to read a passage as to how this House took those citizenship proposals which it is now suggested are so vital. I am reading, Sir, from the proceedings of 8th February, 1956, at column 1419: