Hansard, 1957-04-29

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question (27th April, 1957), "That this Assembly-

Order. The Chief Minister is becoming unparliamentary. I think I cannot allow the word "scurrilous".

I withdraw that word, Sir. He must forgive me because I speak with great emotion. Sir, I said I would be failing in my duty, as a leader, if I did not stand up to reply to the unjust attacks, the unjust abuse levelled at them by the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, his plea for an immediate election is based on his unfounded allegation that the All-Party Delegation has made a mess of its job and that an immediate election will help to clear up the mess. Sir, I cannot see where the All-Party Delegation has made a mess of it at all. Before we left Singapore, we had a clear mandate from this Assembly and we have now come back with that mandate fully satisfied. If there is a mess, Sir, it is a mess made by the last delegation, and the present delegation has helped to clean up that mess. He said, Sir, that the introduction of the new constitution could be effected by means of an Order in Council. He pointed out that previously the British Government had agreed to back the constitution by an Act of Parliament. It is clear, Sir, that the mind of the hon. Member has been set to find fault with what we brought back, and on his fault-finding, he failed to read paragraph 52 carefully. Paragraph 52, Sir, the first few lines of the first sentence clearly say that "the constitutional arrangements set out in this Report will require the authority of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament". Paragraph 53, Sir, explains the reason for the enforced delay in introducing this legislation'. This is another reason why it is not possible to hold immediate elections. The Member for Cairnhill has asked whether I would agree to an adjournment of this sitting without a vote being taken, and he added by saying that we need not worry because our seats are safe. Sir, as leader of the All-Party Delegation, I have consulted the Parties concerned. They cannot agree to this request. Moreover, Sir, this very important issue should not be left undecided. I said in my opening speech that if the motion - my motion - is adopted in this Assembly, it would set the machinery in motion to put into operation the first part of my motion; and as far as the second part is concerned, it would be my duty to get in touch with the Secretary of State with a view to asking him to reconsider the condition which he has himself imposed. The Member for Cairnhill said all this talk about a Delimitation Committee was unnecessary, or not right, because he himself knew that there was already a Delimitation Committee in being. Sir, this is not so. At our sitting on the 5th of March, I said that the Government would appoint a Delimitation Committee with representatives of all Parties in that Committee so that the division of Singapore into 51 electoral wards can be done without any possibility of Members of the Opposition accusing the Government of dividing the wards in such a way as to make it favourable to the Party in power. There was a Delimitation Committee, Sir. It was a Government Committee. The Government had that Committee going because of the assurance that the Government has made that the general election would take place in August. Singapore had already been divided into 51 divisions. The machinery was set in motion and electoral rolls would have been ready by now had it not been for the fact that the All-Party Conference, after having given very serious consideration to the question of the date of effect of the new constitution, decided that it would be most unfair if all persons who will enjoy the citizenship rights should be deprived of the opportunity of exercising those rights in the choice of a new government and under the new constitution. The Member for Cairnhill criticised, Sir, our demand which was agreed by the Secretary of State that the Head of State of the State of Singapore should be Malayan-born. He said that this was worse than what he had asked for. Sir, the All-Party Delegation felt that the Head of State should be a Malayan-born and not a Malayan, because a Malayan will include a large number of persons who are not Malayan-born. Sir, he accused us of hastily convening a sitting for the 5th of March when he was away from Singapore. He alleged that I was aware that he would be away. Sir, the All-Party Conference at its earlier meetings, when the Member for Cairnhill was a representative of the Labour Front in the conference, decided that a special sitting of this Assembly should be called on the 28th of February in order to debate on the recommendations of the All-Party Conference. Hon. Members were aware that there had been some delay in the All-Party Conference in reaching finality because of the misunderstanding that arose in regard to the demand of U.M.N.O. It was not possible to clear this misunderstanding until the 1st of March, and therefore the earliest sitting that could have been held before the All-Party Delegation left for London was the 5th of March. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill said that the All-Party Delegation was inadequate. I really cannot understand the reason for that charge. Before we left, as I said, Sir, we had a mandate from this Assembly. We came back with the mandate fulfilled. Where then was the inadequacy? He said that on our return there was stony silence. As an Asian, Sir, I know that Asians are not boisterous in their welcome, that Asians are restrained in their behaviour, and it was therefore to be expected that there was to be not much of cheering, but because there had been no cheering - not much of it - it should not be taken to mean that there was silence, that the people of Singapore were shocked at the agreement reached by the All-Party Delegation. He said that the Labour Front had agreed to hold a mass meeting to welcome the delegation back, but that mass meeting was not held because the whole theme that we had been playing on to achieve success was All-Party unity. We went to London as a united party; we came back as a united All-Party, and the celebration should be on an All-Party basis. No political Party should try to steal the credit for the work done by the All-Party Delegation. He then spoke about the publicity for the films that were shown in the cinema halls. Since then I have seen those films about the return of the All-Party Delegation and about the signing of the Report in London, and I, Sir, must say this - that I feel ashamed that those pictures do not include the man who blazed the trail for constitutional advance. The Member for Cairnhill then criticised the presentation of banners and the picture of a sick lion to me, and this was described in the newspapers as organised by the T.U.C., but was later denied by the Secretary of the T.U.C. that it was not a T.U.C. show. Sir, I am not concerned whether it was a T.U.C. show or not a T.U.C. show. It was not arranged at all. Those people are known to me and they felt their happiness and they wanted to display their happiness by the presentation of banners and the picture of a sick lion. That picture, Sir, is hanging in my office, and I have been gazing at it, and I did not see that the lion is a sick lion. But I do say this, Sir, that lion should have been presented to the Member for Cairnhill when he returned last year, as he was the man who blazed the trail for constitutional advance. I do not deserve it at all. The Member for Cairnhill then alleged, Sir, that we want to continue in office right up to our natural life, and in fact he went to the extent of alleging that he believed that we would want to continue beyond our natural life because, the way he read it, paragraph 54, if we are good with the Governor, we may remain in office for many, many more years; because, as he read paragraph 54, he said the date of introduction of the new constitution would rest with the Governor. Sir, it is usually the Governor who sets the date for the elections, but because I was thrilled by the unity of the All-Party Delegation, because I was thrilled that in a national issue all political Parties in Singapore could be united, I felt that it would be most unfair if the Government were to take advantage of this practice. I said that as the new constitution is the result of the united efforts of all Parties, it should be the Parties in this Assembly who should decide on the date of the next election, which would be the date of introduction of the new constitution, and I would be most surprised if the Governor, after receiving an Address from this Assembly, would not take heed of that Address. The Member for Cairnhill, Sir, asked us to turn back the clock. He gave an account of his previous campaign. He said, "Then there was great shouting, there was great activity, and now there is stony silence. And yet these are the same people." Surely, Sir, all that great shouting, all that great excitement, all that great activity could only have been as a result of the activities of the political Parties in this Assembly. We became wiser after the event. We say if there is to be unity, and as unity was the only means of achieving success, no political Party should try to create a situation whereby unity might not be possible. It is as a result of experience we learned out of the last campaign, and if we gained by that experience, surely no one should now criticise that we should be just as foolish as the last delegation. Sir, he referred to what he said was an attempt by the previous Governor, Sir John Nicoll, who had suggested an easy way out for him, and from that he seemed to feel that he was justified to draw a parallel with the condition laid down by the Secretary of State. He said unscrupulous politicians will not take the consequences and they will therefore "pass the buck" to the Secretary of State. Sir, this Government has been in office since June last year and this Government has not shirked its duty towards the people of Singapore when it took drastic action against subversive elements. We did it because we felt that it was needed of us, and we will continue doing it if it is needed of us. We do not have to hide behind the cloak of any colonial official. The Member for Cairnhill then spoke bitterly about our crawling on our bellies to the Federation. I am indeed very happy to read in the Press that our friends the Federation Ministers did not pay much attention to this because they are aware that the representatives in this Assembly - when I say the representatives in this Assembly, it is perhaps with the exception of the Member for Cairnhill - have the best of goodwill and friendship for the Federation and they too have the best of goodwill and friendship towards us. Had it not been for their co-operation, had it not been for their assistance, as I said in my opening speech, the Internal Security Council could not have been brought into being and without it we could not have reached agreement on the whole issue. The Member for Cairnhill then criticised what we have brought back as tiga suku busok merdeka. Maybe it is busok because we brought it back, it would not have been busok had it been otherwise. Sir, let us try to examine what we have brought back, in the light of what the Member for Cairnhill would himself have accepted, although his delegation had advised him not to do so. First of all, I would like to repeat in this Assembly that what we went to get is what we were instructed to get. There was this All-Party Conference planning strategy, and the Member for Cairnhill was a representative of the Labour Front on this conference. He was with us right up to the 22nd of February when we held our fifth meeting. Up to that time we had already disposed of almost everything except two points - the demand of U.M.N.O. and the date of introduction of the new constitution.

And Internal Security Council.

The composition of the Internal Security Council was discussed at a very early meeting-

Composition of?

- and it was agreed that it should be three-three-one. Then on 25th February, I received a letter from the Member for Cairnhill tendering in his resignation as a Member of the All-Party Conference, because he felt that he had lost the confidence of the Labour Front. It was after the Labour Front annual conference, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill felt that he had to take such a line. I replied to him and appealed to him that he should continue to sit in this All-Party Conference so that we could have the benefit of his advice but he thought otherwise. Now, why did the last Mission fail? We all know it, it is worth recounting here because of what has already been said and because the public is now puzzled by all these speeches that have been made in this Assembly. The last Mission failed because of the demand of the British Government for a Defence and Security Council and loaded in such a way that every time the British Government won and with such wide powers that the Defence and Security Council could interfere in the day-to-day administration of Singapore. In the very words of the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, he said, "The intention of Her Majesty's Government is to retain complete imperial powers over Singapore which would remain a colony." Those were his very words, that Singapore should remain a colony subject to these day-to-day overriding imperial powers and that was why he was so resentful. That was why he was in such a rage, and quite rightly so. I was in the same rage but then he himself explained to this Assembly, Sir, last June why he felt it necessary to take upon himself to reopen negotiations with the Colonial Office on a constitution which he described as "Christmas pudding with arsenic sauce". We went to that memorable tea party, Sir. I went although I squirmed and this is all what I get for my loyalty. That proposal, Sir, last year for a Defence and Security Council with a British Chairman was unacceptable and should remain unacceptable and it was because the All-Party Conference felt that unless a compromise was found out of this difficulty, there could be no success. We therefore said to ourselves, "Must we give that decisive power to the British Government?" We said no in 1956 and we still say no in 1957. But then how should we get out of it? Then we thought of bringing the Federation into this Security Council. We say that insofar as the internal security position of Singapore is concerned, the Federation of Malaya is more closely interested in this situation than the British people could ever pretend or hope to make out a case. What is the power of this Internal Security Council, Sir? What was decided in London was that this Internal Security Council should be kept informed of the internal security situation day by day in the same way that the Defence and Security Council proposed by H.M.G. last year also wanted to be kept informed and this Internal Security Council would only take a decisive vote when a dispute arose between the Singapore Government and the British Government. It would be left to the Federation Minister to cast his vote after listening to both sides of the case and cast his vote in his absolute discretion. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill then turned to the paragraphs on internal security. He read out to us paragraph 26 (ii): "to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security;" and he tried, Sir, by his eloquence, to prove that "maintain" means "control". I have, Sir, looked up three dictionaries (Websters, Chambers and Oxford) and I found that "maintain" means "support". This Internal Security Council with the three Governments sitting on it will do all they can to help to support the maintenance of the organs of the internal security. What greater measure of internal security can there be than to have this in the new constitution? The Member for Cairnhill, Sir, again touched on this thorny subject which he felt - and quite rightly so - rather strongly. "Singapore should no longer be under the control of the Colonial Office." I share that strong feeling with him but when I take into consideration the undeniable fact that even if it were to be the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office or any office in the British Cabinet, it would still mean the British Government but we are trying to fight for, shall we say, freedom against the British Government, not the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office or what other office - I do not know the setup there - and it was decided in the All-Party Conference (and he was a member then) that while we could press for it, we should not make an issue of it. Where then have we failed? Where then was the inadequacy as alleged by him? The Member for Cairnhill, Sir, said, "It is simple. Let us have the elections quickly by a simple amendment of the Elections Ordinance." Why he said that is because he was under the mistaken belief - and he has many beliefs - that this new constitution could be introduced by an Order in Council. Paragraph 52 clearly says that it has to be backed by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament and paragraph 53 states: ". . .it would not be possible to introduce the necessary United Kingdom legislation during the current Session of Parliament;" but the British Government had promised to do their best to introduce it at the next Session and this will be, I think, in November. It is not so easy-

I wonder if I could draw the attention-

Is it on a point of order?

No, Sir.

If the Chief Minister will give way. The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

I thank the Hon. the Chief Minister, Sir. May I ask him to read the last sentence of paragraph 54 to which he is referring?

Sir, I am afraid that the Member for Cairnhill is still suffering a mental strain. I have not said paragraph 54 at all. I said paragraphs 52 and 53.

Read the last sentence of paragraph 52.

After the Act has been passed, then it would be contained in an Order in Council. Before the Act has been passed, how could it be contained in an Order in Council! Sir, I am not a lawyer. I am just a poor ordinary clerk and sometimes I do find difficulty in understanding the English language. "You can introduce elections in three months by the simple process of just going through the identity cards and anyone who has ten years residence could be put on the electoral roll." Never mind about citizenship! What is loyalty after all'! Put them on and when you have the new constitution in, then go and check up on their loyalty and if they do not want to be citizens, out they go but by then they would have voted and put in people who might not want to be citizens of Singapore. We would then be in a real quandary. It has been pointed out, Sir, that the identity card system came into being in October 1948. That could not be ten years but then the Member for Cairnhill amended it rather quickly. "It could be nine years. It could be eight years." But I have been advised, Sir, by the Statistics Department that it will take from five to six months to sort out all the identity cards and then to get their machines into action to produce the electoral rolls and after the electoral rolls have been produced, it would take about four months under the Elections Ordinance - if not four months, 101 days - for the electoral roll to be open for inspection, objections to be received and all sorts of procedure. Five to six months plus four months will be nine months. It could not be three months. But then if you said, "This Government particularly myself has broken my word to him when I assured him in this Assembly and in a personal letter that the Government would have general elections in August 1957," I was aware that such a criticism would be levelled at me and that was why at the sitting on the 5th March, I made it very clear to this Assembly that if there was to be any delay in the elections beyond August, the Assembly must take the full responsibility. I do not want to continue in office unnecessarily as Chief Minister, Sir. I have said almost everywhere and I say in this solemn hall that to be a Chief Minister is to suffer more than a human being at times can bear. I do not want it but the interest of the people of Singapore demands that I should make this sacrifice. I am happy to make it and I will make it and no ridicule levelled at me by any Member in this Assembly will deter me from doing my responsibility to my people. I have been doing public work for nine years. My house has been invaded from morning to night. I held it all quietly. I did not have to hold a weekly public session with members of the Press and photographers to show that I was really doing work for the people of Singapore. I do not have to do that, Sir. Deeds count and not words. Deeds count. I am indeed, Sir, most ashamed that I should give way to emotion. I have never done that. But this is much too much. Sir, from all that I have said, it is therefore evident to this Assembly that I oppose the amendment. 10.47 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened very carefully to the various speeches in this House. Sir, you said that this is a very important debate, a debate which should have solemn silence with no interruptions and with no jeering. Unfortunately, in the past few days, we have been disturbed in that manner. It is not becoming to the dignity of this Assembly. We have heard very powerful oratory from the Member for Cairnhill, the eloquent speech from the Member for Tanjong Pagar and from various speakers. Now, Sir, there are three issues involved in the debate on the amendment: if we got merdeka, should we have accepted it?; if not, what could be the consequences?; and elections. Now, Sir, the mandate to the previous All-Party Delegation was for full self-government, that is, merdeka, and that delegation could be called the Merdeka Delegation; but, Sir, the last All-Party Delegation went to London to seek internal self-government and not merdeka, it is a fallacy and it is wrong to say that it was a Merdeka delegation or that we got merdeka. We have not received anything of that sort. Sir, on this platform, I have said very often that the colonial power is not going to give self-government on a silver tray to the people of Singapore. Also before the delegation left for London, I said that our demands were reasonable and that the United Kingdom should grant them but though the members of the delegation were honest and sincere in standing by the mandate we gave them, yet the colonial power - the master of diplomats (the Colonial Secretary) - sent them back with their hands and feet tied. Now. Sir, what did we get? Yes, we got high-sounding names like Chief of State, Commissioner for Britain and Prime Minister but who gets the real power? If you go through these paragraphs, Sir, at every stage the Chief of State has to consult the Commissioner for the United Kingdom. The Commissioner for the United Kingdom is a name but actually it is a British Resident according to the sense I make out from this Report. New names do not make any difference, it is the substance that makes the difference. Now, Sir, on top of this, there is a suggestion of an agreement on the subversive paragraph but the All-Party Delegation says that it is not an agreement. Now, Sir, according to British justice, no one is guilty unless he is proved to be so. The best thing is to bring these people to trial. The public do not know what has been going on in privacy or in camera. We do not know. Possibly, the Government does know. Sir, on the other hand, do you really expect the United Kingdom to give up Singapore? I do not think so. Supposing you were in their shoes, would you do it as a colonial power? Singapore is the most strategic place in South-East Asia. The United Kingdom has Gibraltar, Malta, Aden - of course, they will have to get out of Trincomalee - and the only place in South-East Asia for the defence of their territories and their economic position and White Australia is Singapore, and then do you mean to say that they will leave Singapore? Personally, I never expected it. Yes, they will if they are forced to do so. Now, Sir, how can we force this colonial power to do so? We can do so with unity, with a struggle, and if we fight as one nation.

And justice.

Order.

May I have the hon. Member's indulgence, please?

Sorry.

India has done it with 80 years of struggle, fights, gaols, deaths, and so on, and they succeeded. They even boycotted the Cripps Commission when that great statesman first came to India. Well, that is history. Are we in that same position? Is Singapore largely populated and with a wide area? That is not so. What is our past history? It is only 130 years old and we only heard a few names which were in the political field before 1955. We are just beginning and we are proud of that. Sir, if what we have got is not satisfactory, what are we to do? Personally I think - and I said this in the last debate when the previous delegation returned empty-handed - that we should have accepted what was offered to the maximum. We should have taken advantage of it and things would have been different. We would not have the sad spectacle of the colonial power running this Government or the Government running the government with the aid of ex-officio and nominated Members. That would have ended long ago. Now, Sir, the only alternative is to accept what is offered. England is in no position to refuse us even if we were to refuse to accept the subversive paragraph. She dare not. Do not forget that the British people are the only white people left in South-East Asia. Look from Suez to Japan. Of course, you have America holding an economic stronghold and even fighting Britain in this sphere. They will give in. They try to hold on as long as they can; even for a year, a month, a day or even for a single second but it is in our hands whether we should allow them to do so. Now, Sir, the new constitution provides for 51 elected representatives but the elections should be held in a democratic way. Britain allows free elections in that country but not here. But there is a remedy: it is only for the first elections and the first elections can be held - I will come to that - as early as possible and you can dissolve your Assembly within six months or within six days. Sir, we started with the Rendel Constitution in April 1955. Within two months, the Member for Cairnhill, who was the Chief Minister then, put up a strong fight and made the Colonial Office give way in many respects. Also, the United Kingdom conceded further talks. Now, Sir, this Constitution lays down that it shall not stand beyond four years but that we can reopen the talks any time we like within the four years, provided the right people are elected to the Assembly, not self-seekers, and if they have got the will to do it, they can resign and say, "Look here, U.K., you continue. You want this again." This can be done and I think that that is the shortest way. Even the P.A.P. has watered down their past demands. I do not think that the ex-Chief Minister was responsible for the last failure. The P.A.P. was backing the Chief Minister at that time. They were not satisfied with anything less than that and they did not accept less than that, but now they have. The only possible explanation is that they consider this the maximum and will try for more later on. I think this is a diplomatic way of getting things done as we are just a new nation with new citizenship rights. Sir, on internal security, I think we must accept the present arrangement as being better than the one offered last year, because we have three-three membership on the Council with a Minister from our neighbour and friend, the Federation, having the casting vote. As the people of the Federation and Singapore are one and the same, I am sure the Federation Minister will take the side of Singapore and not the colonial power. But, Sir, even after this provision, I do not think we are getting real freedom at all. Definitely not. You will never get it, for Singapore is a strategic base to England. They will try to keep Singapore by one means or another. But there is a way out, the only way, and that is to merge with the Federation. It is the only way; there is no other. We do not know whether the Federation has a gentleman's understanding with the United Kingdom or a written agreement which lets the Federation get its freedom but leaves Singapore in British hands. I do not know; nothing has been disclosed. But in diplomacy, everything is possible. And it is possible that even if we merge, England will still demand the use of Singapore for defence purposes but in other respects - external affairs, trade, culture, internal security - we will be quite free. I think it will be more becoming to do that than to remain in their hands, as we will be even under the new constitution, because at every step you will have to consult the British High Commissioner stationed here, and accept his advice. Even in trade we will not be free. Why should this be so? They will control internal security and defence and external affairs. Why should they also have a say in trade? This city exists on trade. Why should we have to consult the United Kingdom on it? And why should we also have to concede control of cultural relations? However, there is, as I have said, no other alternative in hastening the end of this colonial period. I must say that there is a lot in what the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanjong Pagar said. We may not agree with their political views in some respects or in many respects, but some points they make can be for the common good of Singapore and there is no reason why we should not accept them. On citizenship and immediate elections, for example, I personally do not think that if the Government have the will to hold elections quickly, we need wait beyond the end of 1957. We are now at the end of the fourth month of the year and we have therefore a full eight months left. If Government want to hurry and if all the Parties want Government to hurry, they can hold elections very easily. The Member for Tanjong Pagar mentioned six months for the registration of voters. How can this be done? Of course there are 250,000 people involved and there will be 51 constituencies, but you have a powerful Chinese Chamber of Commerce to help you out. I would suggest that the period of six months can be cut to three or four. If that can be done, I think elections can easily be held on 1st January, 1958. I think this will be accepted by all. Now, Sir, let us read paragraph 54 on page 15: "It was the view of the Singapore Delegation that elections under the extended franchise which would result from their citizenship proposals set forth in paragraph 50 must precede the coming into force of the new Constitution. We therefore agreed that an exact date for the introduction of the new Constitution could not be determined at this stage, but that it should be brought into force on a date after the 1st January, 1958." The first condition is that elections should be held before the new constitution comes into force, and it can be after 1st January, 1958. Cannot we set our hearts and minds - I think that will satisfy everyone - to work so that we can hold elections early in 1958? (That is in January, not April or May, as envisaged by the Member for Tanjong Pagar.) I am sure that when the All-Party Delegation meet again, they will consider this point. Sir, personally I am very unhappy about the present Government. It is not a democratic one. I thought that during the Marshall period (not that I was against the Member for Cairnhill personally) because when votes were taken, there were three Officials and four Nominated Members to say "yes"; but they carried on although they were in a minority. Yes, you should shorten your time for nomination and new elections. Sir, Government expenditure has been top-heavy, with so many Ministers and Assistant Ministers. I am talking on the amendment, Sir, on the question of immediate elections. Now, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister, in the debate in which he got a mandate, said - as he says even now - that his Ministers were feeling the strain of office. I cannot understand what this strain is. Three Ministers went to London in the All-Party Delegation, and while they were absent, the Minister for Health also left Singapore for Japan. Four Ministers were away at the same time.

Order. I really cannot see how those remarks are relevant to the motion before the House, which is in connection with the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill.

Sir, I will explain that very easily. The amendment reads "nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of"; I want immediate implementation of what we are given, and that is what I am talking about, Sir. Why?-

Order. That does not make the Member's remarks in order or relevant to the motion. The whole amendment must be read together. The whole amendment is to insert "regretfully takes note of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference, and nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution." I cannot see how the fact that the present Government, in the view of the Member, is top-heavy, has anything to do with the Report or the amendment.

Sir, I do not want to argue with the Chair at all, but what I still hold is that if my comments do not apply in that case, they definitely do on the remarks made by the Hon. the Chief Minister in this debate today, that he is not anxious to continue very long as Chief Minister - and the Hon. the Chief Minister meant his colleagues together with himself.

Please continue on the amendment.

Sir, my suggestion is this: Form an interim government between now and the next elections, an interim government with the minimum number of Ministers and no Assistant Ministers. That will save the country a lot of expenditure, and one of their main tasks will be to see that the elections are held at the earliest possible moment. Sir, on citizenship for residents who have lived here for seven or ten continuous years, I think identity cards, passports and other records at the Chinese Protectorate (I do not know whether it is called by that name now) will provide the details required for registration. They have the records of alien Chinese and others, and these can easily be compiled if there is a will to do so. Sir, I was told by my legal adviser when I was an active businessman that a lawyer wins half his case by courtesy and goodwill, and the other half by legal argument. During the debate which unfortunately has taken an exciting turn in the last three days, a challenge was made by the Member for Cairnhill. I hope he meant that he will oppose the Member for Tanjong Pagar at the new elections and not at an immediate by-election. Perhaps he made his challenge in the heat of the moment, when we are all apt to say things we never intend to. In many debates, I should at times have been the person most hurt by the remarks of the Member for Cairnhill, but, Sir, I never took them to be personal ones. As I said, sometimes we never mean what we say in excitement. I take what is good and best but ignore the others. If a by-election does not take place, a lot of expenditure will be saved to the country. Sir, coming to the end of my speech, I offer the opinion that, in order to end this colonial farce, we have to discard the present constitution as early as possible. The only way is not to put off arguments, as again consultations may have to take place with the United Kingdom, entailing more delay. We should accept what we have obtained and fight for more while we see to it that elections are held as early as possible. 11.18 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Friday was indeed a sad day for us on this side of the House, for we saw one who began by doing so much good for Singapore now trying to tear up something which his colleagues had achieved, instead of congratulating them on their success. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill on Friday set himself up as a champion of the "decent inarticulate people of Singapore", but he failed to tell us, or produce any evidence to show, how these people conveyed to him their opinion that it was "tiga suku busok merdeka" which the delegation brought back from London, that the mission had sold Singapore to the British colonialists - "sold the people to continued colonialism", those were his words. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that such an opinion has been expressed by these "decent inarticulate people", it must be assumed that it is rather presumptuous on the part of the Member for Cairnhill to set himself up as the sole champion of the people of Singapore, ignoring the fact that there are 24 other elected representatives in this House who think otherwise.

Why not wait till the by-election?

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is a brilliant lawyer and, as is the practice with any brilliant lawyer when he addresses a jury - a group of laymen - he started off his arguments with a barrage of words. He built a vast edifice of words but what does that vast edifice hold in genuine, valid arguments? Sir, when I heard him for the first hour and a half, I thought, "We are sunk; the mission must have really failed." Hearing him admonish the delegation on their failure, Sir, I never expected to find that, instead of producing a lion of a case, he could bring out a mouse, a mouse created by his own fancy, a mouse existing only in his own imagination. Sir, I am not an eminent lawyer like the Member for Cairnhill. I am not a lawyer at all, but perhaps at this time, it is more to my advantage that I am not, because I do not let my imagination run wild. Sir, the Member quoted extensively from the two Reports, the one presented by the present delegation and the other by last year's delegation. At the time the Member spoke, I did not have last year's Report with me, but having been a member of that delegation, the facts stood out very clearly in my mind. Sir, there are 13 Members of this Assembly who were in London in April and May last year, and they do not have to read reports to remember what transpired there. They went through heart-breaking moments and the memory of every single moment and day stands out vividly in their minds. But just out of curiosity, Sir, I dug up last year's Report to compare what the Member for Cairnhill said with what is contained in the Report. And this is what I found. The first attack of the Member on the present Report was on the internal security arrangements. Paragraph 26 (i) on page 6 was read out: "to consult on all questions of policy relating to the maintenance of public safety and public order;". The Member for Cairnhill did not dispute that. He said he was happy to consult, to learn from anybody. But he hotly disputed paragraph 26 (ii) : "to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security:". And the basis of his criticism that the mission had sold the people of Singapore to eternal colonialism (I am not sure whether he used the word "eternal") was because the Internal Security Council was to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security. Now, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also told us about his talk with Sir John Nicoll, when Sir John tried to persuade him to let the colonial officials pass the Emergency Regulations so that the elected Members would not get the blame from the public; the Member mentioned before once in this Assembly that he refused to hide behind the skirts of colonial officials. That same argument he has now used for refusing to accept the paragraph indicating that the United Kingdom Government does not wish subversive elements to take part in the first elections. Here again, his argument is that it is the duty of the elected representatives of the people of Singapore to ban subversives from standing for election, but he cannot accept a ban imposed by the colonial power. He cannot accept an imposition from the colonial power, neither can he accept hiding behind the skirts of colonial officials. But if you look at the Report of last year's mission, Sir, this is exactly what was offered and what the delegation, led by the Member for Cairnhill, was prepared to accept. If the United Kingdom Government had agreed then to a Federation Minister sitting on the Consultative and Advisory Council, last year's delegation were prepared to accept Orders in Council made by the colonial power, not by, for example, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who is to be a Malayan. Our mission, Sir, has therefore achieved something more. On the point which the Member for Cairnhill has been arguing about all the time, that this Internal Security Council is going to force us to acts which we do not like, Sir, if we are going to face our responsibilities squarely, it is better for us that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who will be Malayan-born, and not the United Kingdom representative, should carry out all acts required in the interests of internal security. I put it to Members: Which is less evil? Is it better for us to carry out those acts ourselves, or is it better to give the powers to the United Kingdom Government, as agreed to by last year's delegation? Then, Sir, on paragraph 26 (iii), it says: "to ensure equal access by both Governments to the services of these organs and to all information at their disposal." This, says the Member for Cairnhill, means that colonial spies can pry into our affairs. But what was offered to and, in fact, accepted by the mission of last year? Footnote (iii) of last year's Report, page 69, reads: "The arrangements proposed in paragraph (14) are on the understanding that, the High Commissioner would have on his staff a Liaison Officer who would have unrestricted access to the Singapore Police Force and such other facilities as would enable him to keep the High Commissioner, as Chairman of the Defence and Security Council, in day to day touch with the internal security situation"- not external defence, Sir. So what is provided for in the present Report, paragraph 26 (iii), is in fact a lesser evil than the provision in last year's Report, a provision which would have been accepted had the United Kingdom agreed to a Federation Minister as the balancing power sitting on the Council. Last year's Report said "unrestricted access"; the present Report says "to ensure equal access". Then the Member for Cairnhill attacked paragraph 40 of the present Report, page 10. In cases of external defence, ". . .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." The Member attacked this provision as another instance where the colonial power had the last say. Sir, the same provision is contained in last year's Report, in paragraph (22) of Annexure L, page 69: "The High Commissioner normally to exercise his powers in respect of assent to bills in accordance with the advice of Ministers, but to be required to reserve for Her Majesty's pleasure any bill which in the opinion of the Defence and Security Council-" mind you, the "Defence and Security Council", which was to have been a body weighted in favour of the United Kingdom- "prejudices the exercise of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities in the field of external defence and external affairs." So there again you have the offer that was given to us. On the advice of the United Kingdom weighted body, all Bills which they considered as touching upon external security and external defence would have to be reserved for Her Majesty's Government's pleasure. In the present case, of course, the advice is given by a Malayan weighted body, a body on which the Federation Minister holds the balance of power. Which is better - I put it to you? Then, Sir, we come to the contention: in the last constitutional talks there was no such thing as internal security. That was purely a matter of external defence. Sir, if you look at the last delegation's Report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956) at page 52, Annexure I, paragraph (3) (c) says: "The preservation or restoration of public safety or public order and the maintenance of essential supplies and services, to the extent to which they relate to matters referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this definition or to external affairs as defined in this subsection." And paragraph (a) reads: "The provision, construction, maintenance, security, staffing, manning and use of defences, equipment, establishments and communications for the naval, military or air security of any part of the Commonwealth (including the State of Singapore)." Paragraph (b) says: "The organisation, armament, control and discipline of, and the furnishing of supplies to, and transportation of naval, military and air forces of the Commonwealth (other than forces raised by the State of Singapore)." This, Sir, means that in every Bill there could have been control exercised by the United Kingdom High Commissioner or by the United Kingdom Government on the advice of a Council which was weighted with United Kingdom interests. Sir, that is not only my opinion, but that is the opinion of the ex-Chief Minister himself and of the whole delegation. On page 72 of last year's Report, paragraph 3 says: "The suggestion that Her Majesty's Government should have overriding powers to legislate by Order in Council and emergency regulations through their High Commissioner in the extremely wide fields indicated, after consideration by the Defence and Security Council on which they have the majority vote, is wholly repugnant to the Delegation...". Then at page 14, at the top, it says: "The general reservation of Imperial Legislative Powers covered practically every field of activity in the territory...". And here now we are trying to differentiate between the Internal Security Council and the External Defence and Security Council and why there should be an Internal Security Council; but what in fact was the Council that was mooted at the last meeting was an all-controlling Council which controlled both. That was the deciding factor on borderline cases of what comes within internal security and what impinges on external defence. Sir, the hon. Member's arguments have all the time been based on what was offered and that the present delegation had got far less than what was offered. But of course the Member will not forget those memorable days, especially the day before the talks broke down, when he called a hurried meeting at No. 10 Carlton House Terrace and put his idea across that the talks could still be saved if we agreed to a new proposal, and that was that the Federation Minister should be the deciding voice on this Council. He will not forget, Sir, how he went and begged the Secretary of State to accept this proposal and how anxiously we waited for him to hear the result of that meeting. Sir, if the Secretary of State had accepted that proposal, it would not have given something more than what the present delegation has achieved. In fact, we would still have been given something less. We would then have had a Council which was weighted by the Federation Minister as it is now, but a Council that is only advisory, whereas now the Council is executive. It carries out what it thinks should be done. In the other case, the Council would still have been advisory. The executive power to carry out would have been with the United Kingdom Government to make Orders in Council above our heads and above the heads of the elected representatives. Then again the Advisory Council might give advice which is to our interests but which is not to United Kingdom interests and the United Kingdom would not carry it out. Sir, no one disputes the fact that what the present delegation has achieved is not independence. No one says it is independence. In fact, the delegation never set out with the idea of achieving independence, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has clearly pointed out. In fact, one of the most bitter arguments which the last delegation had was wherein lay the sovereign power, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has told us. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill recounted that there were three independent countries - Honduras, the Lebanon and Paraguay - which were slightly larger than Singapore in population and there were many independent countries which were smaller than Singapore in population, and there were so many other independent countries which had less revenue than Singapore has, and therefore there was a good case for Singapore to be independent amongst the nations of the world. But one thing the Member for Cairnhill forgets, Sir, and that is size. Size is very significant, Sir, when it comes to thinking of independence. Size matters because your economy is governed to a large extent by the size of the land you have. Without land you cannot have a basic economy, and without a basic economy, you cannot carry out the functions of a sovereign State. You will not have the resources to provide for your own defence. There are a lot of things which are required of a sovereign State, and therefore our destiny should lie towards merger with the Federation. Sir, we are an island which has been politically cut off from the mainland, and the only way we could achieve independence is by merger with the Federation and nothing should be done to jeopardise the chances of such a merger. This constitutional advance is not an end. It is only a transitional stage until such time as, by merger, Singapore becomes part of the Federation. Sir, we are today in a very ridiculous position, a small speck on the map, a tiny island of 225 square miles having a government of its own; having Ministers. It is a ridiculous situation, Sir, I suggest. By right we should be part of the Federation. If it had not been for political necessity of the United Kingdom - I do not know what they had in mind - we would probably have been part of the Federation by now. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also mentioned that it is fashionable now to become pro-colonialists. It is not so, Sir. It was perhaps fashionable before to go star-gazing, Sir, to dream of things which, due to our limitation of size and population and resources, we could never achieve. The fashion now is to be more practical, to get what we can manage, and to work for something more, and that can only be done by merging with the Federation. Sir, there was an attack made by the hon. Member on the appointment of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara being a Malayan-born. I considered, Sir, that "Malayan born" offers a much smaller field than "Malayan". First of all, there is no proper definition yet of what and who is a Malayan. I read in the Press yesterday of somebody, not a Malayan in the real sense of the word, who has been here for 32 years and who has amassed a great amount of wealth, a million dollars, or perhaps it was $5 million, and he derided all this talk about merdeka; and yet that man can claim to be a Malayan, because he has been here for 32 years. If the delegation had said "Malayan", the field would have been more wide open than it is at present when the delegation has accepted "Malayan born" as the guiding factor. The Member for Cairnhill was afraid that under "Malayan born", Her Majesty could appoint a European who was not a genuine Malayan, but the same thing could happen if the word had been "Malayan" and not "Malayan born". There are so many Europeans who are Malayans, but our guiding principle is a ten-year qualification for citizenship - Mr Marshall rose -

Is it a point of order?

Sir, the argument was not that the word should have been "Malayan", but that it should have been on the advice of the Singapore Government.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has had experience as Chief Minister and he knows full well that these are legal phrases and that normally it is the practice always to consult and get advice from the Government concerned. That is so even in smaller things and not only in big things like appointing a Head of State. There is always consultation, and advice is asked for. The Member also mentioned that the Colonial Office was repugnant to us and I admit that it is so to all of us, but I must remind him that when he brought up a motion on this subject at the Labour Front annual conference I queried the word "acceptable" (he used the phrase "not acceptable") and said that it should be changed to desirable, and he made it clear that the word "acceptable" was to be regarded flexibly and not to be carried to the point of breaking down the talks, and then I withdrew my objection, so that I do not see that that is a point on which he could now criticise the motion. One last word, Sir. The hon. Member mentioned that Singapore could be put under the control of the United Nations. Sir, at this time when all Asians are looking with interest to what is happening in Egypt, which is trying to keep the Suez Canal Zone free from international control, that suggestion from the Member for Cairnhill does not come at the right moment. What would happen if you had international control in Singapore? I would not like to think of it. Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar has aptly described what would happen. Sir, I therefore oppose the amendment. 11.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate in this Assembly today is concerned with two questions. These are: (1) Has the All-Party Constitutional Delegation to London abided by the principles contained in the All-Party White Paper which was presented before this House at the last sitting in March? (2) Does this House support the stipulation by Lennox-Boyd that detainees under the Public Security Ordinance cannot take part in the first election under the new constitution? On the first question, Sir, if a study is made of the White Paper drawn up by the All-Party Merdeka Conference and the report of the results of the constitutional conference in London, it can be seen that there has been no essential departure from the mandate which this House gave the mission before it left for London, excepting, of course, the notorious restriction on detainees. Compared with the Rendel Constitution, Sir, the concessions which have been made by the Colonial Office at this second Merdeka Conference represent an advance. However, it must be clearly recognised that the results achieved do not in any way mean that we have achieved independence, as the Federation has done. No State can be independent so long as its external defence and foreign affairs are under the control of the imperial power. Further, as long as external defence is in the hands of the Colonial Office, then there will always be the argument that the preservation of internal security is pre-requisite to the maintenance of external defence. It was precisely this point which caused the breakdown of the first Merdeka Conference. Under these circumstances, Sir, the best possible solution was the setting up of an Internal Security and Defence Council consisting of three Singapore Ministers, one Federation Minister, and three British members. It has been quite obvious that the consent of the Federation Government to sit on this Council was a vital factor in the successful conclusion of Singapore's second constitutional conference and preventing a repeat deadlock of last year. For us in Malaya, Sir, this gesture of the Federation Government is a happy omen. The time is not distant when Singapore and the Federation will be united as one independent country. What is the net gain of the second Merdeka Conference? It is this, Sir. In future this Assembly will be filled with the elected representatives of the people, a Cabinet to be drawn from our own people, and with power to formulate policies on internal affairs. Finally, we come to the second problem which faces this House today. If we believe in a democratic system of government, then we cannot accept the restriction on political detainees taking part in the next election. We oppose the last-minute clause thrown by the Colonial Secretary at our Merdeka Delegation. We oppose it on principle, Sir. It is undemocratic. Until a man's guilt is proved in a court of law, we should not penalise him in this way. As far as I can see, what the Colonial Office has offered us is a durian. The fruit inside is the new constitution. The thorny skin outside is the restricted clause on detainees taking part in the next election.

What about the smell?

Good smell. Does the Colonial Office expect us to eat the skin as well as the fruit? We decidedly will not eat the skin. Sir, my Party therefore support the stand of the All-Party Delegation and oppose the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill. 11.52 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, anyone who has been listening to the eloquent speech made by the Member for Cairnhill, has watched the fine performance made by him before this House, and subsequently heard his arguments torn to shreds bit by bit, would possibly have come to the conclusion that the Member for Cairnhill might have been reciting the dialogue of an act instead of making a speech on the motion before the House. Unfortunately, Sir, his power of reasoning does not equal his art of oratory, otherwise we would have been spared the ordeal of hearing his four-hour speech of distorted views.

Order. I have not over-ruled the word "distorted" up to now, but in this context I think I must do so.

I respectfully withdraw it. Sir. The delegation has obtained all that is required in the mandate, and although the Member for Cairnhill was with us in five out of the seven meetings held by the All-Party Merdeka Conference called by the Chief Minister to discuss the mandate for the London Delegation, I do not recollect an instance where he had put up those points which he made in his speech, nor had he opposed the agreement reached. Neither have I seen any statement voicing his opposition to the mandate since his return from Borneo. Since the hon. Member wishes us to believe that he has so much of the interests of the country at heart, why did he not return to Singapore on or before the 5th of March?

I was never told.

Anyway, he should have known about it. He should have given to this House his expert opinion. Instead he chooses to blame this House for not lengthening the debate to suit his personal convenience. In this respect, Sir, I am reminded of a page in the history of China of a man by the name of Ju. He lived in China 3,000 years ago. This man was entrusted with the duty of alleviating the flood of the Yellow River Basin. It took him ten years to complete the job. During this period he passed his house three times. He could have taken the opportunity to visit his family, but he did not. He considered that his duty towards the State should supersede that of his own, and yet here we find the Member for Cairnhill today choosing to go to Borneo in Singapore's hour of need to seek for personal gain.

Order. I do not know how that is relevant to the motion. The fact that the Member for Cairnhill goes to Borneo or any part of the world cannot have any relevance.

I was replying to the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, the reason for doing it. Is he the man whom he purports to be, or is he the man who says in his heart, "I, the Member for Cairnhill, the first Chief Minister of Singapore, leader of the 1956 delegation to London, willing to stoop at the feet of Nehru, and have shaken hands with Chou En-lai - I do not agree with the agreement. How dare the present Chief Minister, who has untactfully admitted in public that he was a clerk, and will be a clerk all his life, do something which I did not do." All this, Sir, I can sum up in two words - sour grapes, and nothing else. As a member of last year's delegation, I would like to congratulate the Chief Minister and the members of his delegation for the good work done. They have succeeded where we failed. This success, Sir, I understand, has been due to the complete unity in the All-Party Delegation in London, and I hope this unity will prevail in this House on all future issues of national importance. Our Party is also glad to note that, in spite of paragraph 30 of the Report, the delegation has signed the Report instead of coming home empty-handed or called a Press conference and begged Lennox-Boyd to open the negotiations again. They do it because they are realistic. They do it because, unlike the Member for Cairnhill, they do not believe in miracles in this atomic age. They believe that a small house is better than no house, although everyone of us would like to live in a palace if we could afford one.

Otherwise in a pig sty.

Order.

Even that is better than no house. Apart from this paragraph 30 of the Report, I think the constitution which we have been promised not the only one we could ever hope to get from Britain today, but a very practical one for Singapore at this stage of development - an area of 235 square miles with a population of one and a quarter million. So until the merger of Singapore with the Federation is a fact, we might be forced by circumstances to leave the question of defence to Britain. We, the Alliance in Singapore, will do our best to make such a merger possible and will leave no stone unturned to remove whatever obstacles there are in the way. Coming to this paragraph 30, of which we have heard so much lately. I do not see what Britain and the Government of Singapore could expect from it. The imposition of this condition by Britain will only create heroes out of those who are being detained - that is in the eyes of a section of the people only -

Martyrs.

But after close examination, these so-called heroes, or martyrs as what the Member for Cairnhill has just said, may not be heroes after all. They may be rogues in disguise seeking for personal gain. In saying this, Sir, I am not doubting the wisdom of the Government at all in issuing those Detention Orders. In fact, I am one who always advocates for it. What I mean to convey to this House is this: that we are not frightened to fight the election side by side with them, and if they are hypocrites or imposters, we can always expose them, for we believe that right will ultimately triumph over evil. Another question on which I would like to touch is the question of residential qualification for citizenship. Although this question has been agreed to by all Parties concerned, including Her Majesty's Government, but in view of the recommendations of the Reid Commission published lately, I wonder whether the Government could bring the matter in line with the Federation today - that is, eight years instead of ten. If a man is considered fit enough to be a citizen of the Federation, there is no reason why he should not be fit for Singapore. Numerous editorials in the Chinese Press have been clamouring for such a reduction, and I hope the Government, in consultation with all the Parties concerned and Her Majesty's Government, will do their best to accede to the request. For the reasons which I have just explained, I oppose the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. 12.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am distressed that the debate that should have been concerned with the triumph of the All-Party Delegation in bringing back a new Constitution for Singapore, should be in danger of being remembered as the tragedy of the Member for Cairnhill. Let me dwell first, and at greater length, on the triumph, at the risk of some inevitable repetition. The Hon. the Chief Minister has rightly and properly emphasised that this is not a Government motion which the Member for Cairnhill seeks to amend, but an All-Party motion. That is of the greatest importance. The major Parties - the Labour Front, the Liberal-Socialists, the M.C.A.-U.M.N.O.-Alliance, the P.A.P. (I put them in alphabetical order) - reached agreement on the policy to be adopted in London, submitted it to this Assembly for unanimous approval, including the Member for Changi, went to London and brought back what is virtually a hundred per cent acceptance -

No.

- of the mandate given to it. For the first time in these few years we as an Assembly have shown that when national matters are at stake, wise leadership can produce and maintain a united front. Sir, one of the characteristics which have made the British parliamentary system workable in Britain is this ability to rise above party when national honour is paramount and national solidarity essential. The success of the All-Party Delegation is evidence that the democratic system can work in a multi-racial Singapore as well as in homogeneous Britain. I believe this to be a matter of the greatest significance for the future. Let us not forget that two months ago the possibility of success was assailed by three grave doubts: firstly, the deep concern of the Malays as to their position in a future Singapore; secondly, whether Britain could possibly accept a three-three-one Security Council; and, thirdly, whether a Malayan-born as Head of the new State of Singapore would be conceded. First of all, diplomacy and good sense on all sides resolved the not unreasonable perturbation of the Malays before the conclusion of the All-Party Conference, and I do not think enough credit has been given to the Malay leaders for the part they played, nor to the national party unity which helped to influence them. At all events, the first section of the Report after the declaration that Singapore shall be known as the State of Singapore protects Malay and minority interests. Let that not lightly be forgotten. Secondly, Her Majesty's Government accepted the principle that Singapore Ministers should have "full responsibility for maintaining internal law and order and preventing subversion" in section 24 of this Report which the Member for Cairnhill has sought to ignore or belittle. And furthermore Her Majesty's Government accepted the principle that in cases of doubt the Federation representative should be the deciding voice. On this point I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar and my colleague the Member for Paya Lebar that this decision may well be of historic importance for Malaya and for South-East Asia, and reveals a perspicacity of which we are all as yet not fully aware. For I believe with my hon. Friends that there has been forged with the Federation a link the strands of which are at present largely invisible; and it is on this point alone that I would accept the fact that our new constitution must be delayed, if absolutely essential, for about another year. Because in another year the new State across the causeway will be eight months old, and I venture to suggest that by then the attitude towards Singapore at present prevailing in some quarters there may be beginning to change. And in two years from now, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has pointed out, general elections will be held in the Federation. So our gratitude must go to the Federation for the part they have played in our Security Council. May I at the same time suggest this to the Hon. the Chief Minister - that he should not press the question of a merger with undue haste? Through his diplomacy he has laid the foundation-stone in having Federation representation on the Security Council. Let that stone have time to settle. The third hurdle was establishing that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be a Malayan-born representative of the Queen to be recommended by the Singapore Government to Her Majesty's Government. The Member for Cairnhill made foolish play with the idea that Her Majesty's Government will impose Englishmen born in this country on a self-governing Singapore. I do not believe for one moment that any Englishman, however Malayan he might be, who understands the trends of the times in Asia, would accept this notion as feasible or appropriate. And so let us give credit where it is due. Her Majesty's Government has agreed to a Malayan being appointed Yang di-Pertuan Negara in a not fully independent State as a completely new departure. That is another reason why this All-Party motion should be regarded as a triumph for the unity of the All-Party Delegation and the unanimity of this House. Let me now turn to what I have dubbed "the tragedy of the Member for Cairnhill", and on this matter, Sir, I promise to be as brief and as relevant as possible, because, Sir, it is out of this tragedy that I hope will arise the victory of democratic principles in Singapore's short parliamentary history which he, for one, has been in danger of destroying. Nothing has happened in the last week which is more shocking than the Member for Cairnhill's repudiation of the colleagues whom he once led and on whose loyalty he once relied, a loyalty which we are told was strained to breaking point. The P.A.P. is concerned with the accusation levelled against them, that they double-crossed the people of Singapore; they are well able to deal with that themselves. But what I am concerned with is the setting up and preservation of reasonable standards of conduct in Singapore's parliamentary and public life. Without such standards, no constitution, however liberal, can survive. And so I find exceedingly distasteful the holier-than-thou attitude in which the Member for Cairnhill is seeking to introduce in this House an anti-corruption motion at this particular time. I will say no more than that. Sir, this amendment calling for the immediate implementation of a constitution which the proposer calls a fraud, and the seconder does not, is an insult to the intelligence of the hon. Members of this House. I repudiate it and, in doing so, I shall vote for the All-Party motion forged out of national unity and national determination for the future prosperity of this country. I shall vote for the triumph and not for the tragedy. 12.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one Honourable Minister said that Friday was a very sad day, a sad day indeed for the Government especially when they were met with guns booming over his head from his own side. It reminds me of those days in Singapore when we tried to put up our defences in front and guard our sea coast properly, and then the attack came from behind, from Johore, which was not guarded at all. It was a very sorrowful state of affairs. On Friday, however, we should recollect what was more interesting. We had the Member for Cairnhill talking for four hours. The Chinese Press called it "great fun". I read a translation. The Chinese Press said there was crying, wailing and laughing for four hours. "We had great fun." But I was not convinced, Sir, that those four hours did any good to Singapore. Those four hours were more like an act staged for the benefit of the people of Singapore, to appeal to their hearts, to stir up their emotions, rather than make them think, make them use their heads to decide what was good or what was bad. I listened very patiently I did not interrupt, as did at least one Member interrupt whenever other Members spoke. I listened very carefully and I summed it up when I was asked my opinion as to what I thought about it. I said, "Yes, it was very interesting. It was just like a very large sponge cake," and I said that if we reduced it to size to see how much substance we could get out of it, it would be like the size of the cube of sugar which I showed in the C.P.A. room. All that substance during those four hours! It was very disappointing, Sir, It was indeed a good way of wasting time. It was indeed a good way of wasting other people's useful time. The way how the debate was not allowed to continue after the motion of interruption was again an obstructive move, a move-

I do not think any hon. Member is entitled to comment on the conduct of another hon. Member if he acts strictly within his own Standing Orders.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir. We will go on to other relevant things. It may not be the conduct in this Assembly, but it may be the conduct in connection with the office. Sir, this year the Merdeka Mission went to London with a very much reduced membership, not 13, not that unlucky number, but five. It did not go in little batches - some going in the morning, others in the afternoon; some by one plane, others by another - but they went all together, as one single delegation. One hon. Member wanted to join the delegation. Unfortunately, however, the All-Party Conference thought otherwise, and I suppose that has some bearing on this debate here, making it more prolonged than ever. I have always thought that man in this world should not look at himself and try to shower honours on himself, but whenever another man can do something good and worth while for other people, we should give him the credit. This personality cult should not be allowed to disturb what is good for the whole of Singapore. It should be removed so that the people here are more national conscious than self-conscious. The attitude of "I was not there; therefore it cannot be good" must never happen here. Leaders of Singapore should always set good examples to those whom they want to follow them. I was one of the members of last year's delegation. I was one of the unlucky 13. Of course, this year I went as one of the five members. I suppose those who were on last year's delegation as well as this year's delegation can compare the difference - the difference in leadership, the reasonableness of the one who led us this year. We could also note the difference in the calibre, the steadfastness on the one hand, knowing where we were going and actually getting there, and on the other hand, the change of opinion from day to day, from hour to hour. In fact, last year I never knew what surprises would be sprung on me. There were so many things to do and we were kept very busy. We had the Merdeka Conference: we had the all-delegates' conference; we had the Party leaders' conference; we had the Party delegation conference, and I suppose added to that a host of other conferences. We never knew at that time when we were supposed to sleep. Sometimes we might be called up at ten o'clock, sometimes early in the morning, sometimes late at night. Of course, the most memorable one was at about two or three a.m. and I had to say no to that. The quality of leadership, Sir, is not one which should be able to get the person concerned a great deal of publicity in the newspapers, but one which should give the maximum to the people whom he has proclaimed and sworn to serve. Of course this year we also have heard strange things, but last year we went with a "very brave Chief Minister, a very brave leader", a leader who said, "I will resign if I cannot get what I want." I just cannot recollect how many times that was said. I kept counting that every time, so that during the last days when a reporter asked me, "What are you going to do if such a resignation should take place?", I scratched my head and replied that I had heard it so many times, let me see that happen first.

Order. I have allowed a great deal of irrelevancies but I think that this particular discussion of what happened in London last year is becoming much too detailed to be relevant to the motion before us.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just comparing what we have got this year with what we got last year. My theme was whether we have got more or whether we have got less. We were accused of getting less this year, so it is up to us to tell the Member for Cairnhill that we did not get less. We got a Christmas cake plus something else - the arsenic sauce, of course, we left aside - until we have come to this Assembly to ask whether we should accept that; so that the whole theme then has been a matter of comparison. The leadership last year, Sir, was ferocious, brave-

Order. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.24 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have the assent of the Assembly under Standing Order 72 to move under Standing Order 7 (11), That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Have I the assent of hon. Members?

On a point of information, Sir. Would it not be preferable, Mr Speaker, Sir, if this were taken after this particular motion has been debated so that we will know how much time is left for the remaining items?

It is left entirely to the Minister.

I thought it was appropriate to do it now, Sir. It is stated under Standing Order 7 (11) that it is to be moved "at the commencement of public business".

On a point of information, Sir. Would it not be wiser to move this after, say, 3.30 p.m.?

I have indicated that it is up to the Minister to make his request. He has made his request. Does he withdraw his request?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Debate resumed. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last week, reference was made to a number of animals, such as the lizard of Cairnhill, made repeatedly too a very long time ago, and the chameleon of Cairnhill. There was also the mouse with Tolley's brandy. I find, Sir, that the Mission that tried to get - as the Member for Cairnhill said - more than what the Mission got this year tried a trick on the lion. The mouse with two pegs of brandy went up to the lion and said, "I will bash you to death." When the lion turned round and roared, the mouse did not ask, "Where is the lion?" He scurried into his hole. It reminds me rather, Sir, of a more vivid illustration. Some people quoted Chinese stories; others preferred Shakespeare, and so on, but I have a simple story from English story books which is of a Malayan character. A party that is going out lion hunting usually has a pack of thoroughbreds to assist them in their work, but they always take along a few mongrels - one or two - in order that these brave little things might go forward barking at the top of their voices and when they detect the prey, they make the most of it. Now, that was their usefulness. However, when the lion turns around and roars, then the mongrel - we call it "pariah" here - will scuttle with his tail behind his hind legs. I was just reminded of that story. Now, we come to the part of the motion that was left out about the subversion clause. You have heard the Member for Cairnhill saying that he is for putting all subversives behind bars. "Everyone here sheds crocodile tears", but he is for their not coming out to contest their elections! I remember, Sir, that he, as the leader of the Labour Front, in his proclamations during the elections, said that that Party wanted to abolish the Emergency Regulations. The Emergency Regulations were removed but in their stead, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance came in. He should know that that was a better substitute because, in essence, it seemed to have more effect than the Emergency Regulations. Here is a conflict of principle. The Party under him went against the mandate he gave to the people and he was party to it. Now, he feels that they must be allowed to contest elections and that this condition would be much better done by the Singapore Government itself and not imposed from without. "Singapore must do that!" So we will see how Singapore did that. Last May, there was a bloody riot. People were killed and Singapore was turned into great disorder. [Interruption] In May 1955, Sir. I correct myself. That was during the Hock Lee riots. The then Chief Minister took stern action. He brought many people whom he suspected were not doing Singapore any good behind the bars. Yes, Singapore must do it and the then Chief Minister did it; but out came the unions, out came all the other organisations, out came everybody in Singapore and they stamped their feet. These elements were let out, and let out unconditionally. Where, Sir, is the principle that Singapore must do it and must do it under the then Chief Minister? I find that there is too much contradiction in all these talks. At one time, it is good and at another time, it is not good! At one time, something must be done one way and at another time, it cannot be done the same way! It is very, very difficult to understand, Sir. The illustration I have just given is a very good one.

Worthy of you.

Order.

Now, Sir, let us come again to the reception the people of Singapore had for the Mission. The credit, of course - if there is so much credit to give - goes to the Chief Minister. As part of the Mission, the leader gets the most credit. I do not envy him. I think he deserves all the credit he gets. The people of Singapore did not come with banners and with brass bands. There were no prancing lions along the route of the Merdeka Mission. However, there were no clashes on the padang, not like the clashes at Kallang Airport. No words of dissension were said before, during and after the Mission as compared with the Mission last year. "The people were silent." I do not think that that was quite right, Sir. The people were very happy. I could see smiles everywhere, and I would like the Member for Cairnhill to know, Sir, that in the East here, people are not just that expressive.

Is the Federation not in the East?

They do not go in the street embracing and kissing one another to show their love for one another. This is a thing of the West. If they happen to be disappointed, as they were during the Japanese occupation of Malaya, they did not weep or wail or gnash their teeth or stamp their feet to show their disapproval. It was just silent hatred. You have to live here very long before you can know the real feelings of the people by observation. You have to look into their eyes. You have to look into their facial features before you can tell what they feel. As a person who knows this country and the people well enough and understands their traditions and cultures, I say that the people rejoiced at the time when the delegation returned. For a man, Sir, who was far away from Singapore and was not a witness at the scene to say, "Oh, that reception was poor, the people were not happy. They were stonily silent," let us find out how much truth there is in that statement. How much can we believe it when it is not first-hand news, not even second-hand news but probably third-hand news? Sir, in the padang, as the Minister for Education said, there were a few boos. Yes, a few organised boos for the Minister for Education but a large proportion of the people were just quietly happy. They approved of what the delegation did. Their rejoicings could only be known by any stranger outside this country joining them in their small talk, although we know it by observation. They were absolutely happy. The majority of the people of Singapore are not of the hooligan type who wave banners, shout and misbehave themselves on the street. They are just quiet, gentle, peace-loving people. In this, the Member for Cairnhill has erred. He has interpreted it wrongly and I know, no matter what he says the people of Singapore know their minds. They know how to think with their heads and they are not carried away by emotion. In this House, Sir, we too must be credited with some ability to think. Orations that are good enough for juries and for the masses who are roused by emotion should not be used here. We must be credited with brains to be able to be here to discuss things sanely and quietly. The Member for Cairnhill is very unhappy about the delay in the coming elections. "It must be done very fast. It should be done in two months' time. We should make use of the identity cards and then ask these people to vote. You can do it in two months. You can do it in three months." I do not know whether he said two or three months. But it is a very short time. I suggest that we could have done it in a much shorter time and we could have had the elections today or we could have been in the midst of an election today if the advice tendered to our then leader were accepted. What was offered last year was definitely less than this year. We will say ten or fifteen percent less but still there was that offer. We advised a little quiet and a little patience in order that negotiations could be carried on again sanely. The talks would not have broken down and if the talks had not broken down, then today we would have been having an elected Assembly consisting of 50 Members. It was for 50 Members last year, Sir, and we would not now be urging the Government to shorten the period for the coming elections. Of course, it is said that we should give the people who are eligible their citizenship rights. "We should give them voting rights. We can prepare legislation for it. We have that ready. We should introduce that rightaway, and in three Readings, we will get it over." If my memory is correct, when I put the question to the Member for Cairnhill, who was then the Chief Minister, he should have come forward and introduced that Bill. As leader of the Labour Front and as the Chief Minister of the then Labour Front Coalition Government, he should have introduced that Bill in this Assembly. We would have been saved all the trouble of wanting to introduce it now. Mr Lennox-Boyd came to Singapore in 1955 and after he left, he made a statement in the Press that the formula for citizenship was agreed to and it was within the power of the Government to carry that out. We waited, waited and waited and we found that nothing was done. No move was made until even June or July last year. Now, there is a hurried move - for we are persuaded to believe that there is a genuine desire to give the right of voting to these people rightaway. I cannot see how the two can tally. Action and words at one stage and at another all go against one another. There is no argument in that at all, Sir. I wish that people are more genuine when they put forward suggestions. I wish that those who profess to want to help the people and give them a better deal should come out sincerely and do things instead of saying things. Because of all this, Sir, I feel that the Member for Cairnhill is arguing against himself at every turn, on every point. I cannot see anything right in the amendment. I oppose that amendment. 2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has not been my practice to jump up every now and then to speak unless it is incumbent upon me to do so. I have always endeavoured to emulate the wise old owl who sat on the old oak tree, but listening to the oration of the Member for Cairnhill, the inconsistent balderdash-

Order. I am getting a little tired of unparliamentary language and the hon. Member must know that "balderdash" is unparliamentary. Please withdraw it.

As it pleases you, Mr Speaker, but listening to the "inconsistencies in support of the amendment". The Member for Cairnhill once asked me to withdraw a remark I made in this House about his proneness in changing his conscience. I did not withdraw it. I do not withdraw it. In fact, I repeat it. I do not, as a rule, indulge in personal attacks. Personal attacks, unless justified, are weapons which should be below the dignity of a Member of this House to use, but one cannot remain silent when our Chief Minister who, when the Member for Cairnhill was Chief Minister, chose to call him his loyal friend and praised him to high heaven, but now because our Chief Minister has done more in the few months than the Member for Cairnhill did in 18 months; who did not create crises every day nor called upon his Ministers daily on self-created impending crises; who has led the Members of the Government calmly and steadily, instilling that feeling of confidence in the people of Singapore which was missing immediately before: who is an adept in strategy and does not have to kneel at the feet of Nehru; who knew what he wanted when he went to London this time with the All-Party Delegation and got what the All-Party Delegation wanted in accordance with the mandate received from this House - perhaps in bitterness or in aspiring to regain the power he wielded in this House in those days, the Member for Cairnhill chooses to attack unfairly and unjustly - one cannot then remain quiet. We are accustomed in this House to his histrionics but the Member for Cairnhill has certainly excelled himself this time in his theatrical abilities, although at times pathetically. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has dealt with the fallacies of the arguments launched by the Member for Cairnhill in detail and dealt with the statements so loosely made by the Member for Cairnhill effectively. On the question of elections, Sir, any suggestion that the Government is deliberately holding up is not true. The Government was quite ready to hold the elections in August in accordance with the assurances given. The Government proceeded to divide Singapore into 51 divisions. The electoral roll was prepared. It was the All-Party Delegation who, on careful consideration, decided otherwise and the matter was brought to and debated in this House and received unanimous approval. The reason for the delay was obvious. Do we want to give the 200,000 persons to enjoy the citizenship rights that have now been won for them and with those rights the opportunity to elect a new Government. The decision on that point was unanimous. On the question of the date for these elections, the time estimated by the Member for Tanjong Pagar appears quite reasonable but Government will bring about elections at the earliest opportunity. As a Member of the All-Party Delegation who went to London last May and knowing exactly what happened, I can thoroughly endorse what the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said. Yes, I went to the tea party at Mr Lennox-Boyd's house after the failure of the talks and so did our Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock). We went as loyal colleagues of the then Chief Minister and as the only Labour Front Ministers there to give him cheer although we knew the undesirability of reopening the talks and what the ultimate result would be. He knows perfectly well that in accepting collective responsibility how loyal every one on these Front Benches was in lending him support. Is it not therefore a shame for him that in criticising the Clerks Employment Bill which places the ceiling of $500 as a clerk's salary, when his attention was drawn to the fact that he as Chief Minister approved the Labour Code which placed the ceiling at $400 he so glibly and shamefully put the blame on the shoulders of the Minister for Labour-

Order. There again, I think the hon. Member has erred by using the words "glibly" and "shamefully". Please withdraw those two words.

As it pleases you. Mr Speaker, but by laying the blame on the shoulders of the Minister for Labour and Welfare, is it therefore not understandable that when he tendered his resignation from the Labour Front, it was accepted unanimously by the Central Committee? It is my opinion that this amended motion was brought without any sane, reasonable and careful consideration. The arguments in support of it have been proved by more than one Member of this House to be fallacious. I naturally oppose it. Even the seconder who feebly seconded the motion openly disagreed with most of what the Member for Cairnhill had said. He probably does not appreciate the significance of the original motion but says that he seconds, the amendment for reasons of his own, which are by no means clear to me. I first intended, Mr Speaker, Sir, to sit quietly and vote against the amended motion without any speechifying but now I find it necessary to do so and in defence of the attacks so maliciously made.

Order. Will the hon. Member also withdraw the word "maliciously"?

As it pleases you, Mr Speaker, "so wrongly made". 2.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been sitting here for the last five days and since last Friday we have been debating on the motion of the Hon. the Chief Minister and on the amendment to the motion of the Chief Minister by the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, you may remember at the last March sitting that the All-Party Delegation before going to London received a mandate from this House to proceed to London for a discussion of a new constitution for Singapore under the leadership of the Chief Minister. The All-Party Delegation have done their best with sincerity and honesty, fighting for what they had been asked to do and they have brought back to us what we wanted and they have tabled the Report here today for our approval to the points they have agreed upon with the British Government. During the debate, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has objected to the motion put up by the Chief Minister and moved an amendment to his motion in this House. Honestly, I believe, Sir, that the All-Party Delegation have done what they have been told to do and returned to Singapore with what we have asked for. To my surprise, the British Government had imposed, in the second part of the motion, a condition to prevent subversive persons from taking part in the coming Singapore elections under the new constitution. Sir, we have proved that we are capable of fighting the subversives ourselves. As you will remember, Sir, during the riots in 1956, we proved to the world that we could fight the subversives. I stand firmly behind the All-Party Delegation for not accepting the condition imposed by the British Government. Now, I come to the second part of the motion, that is, the amended motion by the Member for Cairnhill. He wanted this Government to have a general election as early as possible. I have heard the views of several Members in this House that it is impracticable to have a general election within two or three months. I do support their views, Sir. I do not wish to further my speech any more because I know that other Members wish to speak too. Therefore, before I conclude my speech, Sir, I strongly oppose the amendment. 3.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has been a sad and exhausting session of the Assembly. It is sad for me personally, because it has been the break with a fairly lengthy association in politics with a man for whose abilities I have had the greatest admiration but whose abilities are, I am afraid, being wasted and stultified through acting on a too hasty assessment of political realities; and I have been very unhappy during this debate to hear the Member for Cairnhill exposing himself in every aspect to attack, showing weaknesses in his argument again and again and, at the same time, so putting his arguments and so allowing his oratory to flow, that it was impossible for Members of this House - whatever their personal feelings - to refrain from attacking him in reply. It is not enough that as Members of the House we should know that he is wrong. We may know it, but we have got to give the answers so that everybody may know it; and in the process the hon. Member has had to be stabbed again and again by the hard points of facts. We have heard a great many facts already and I think I ought to give one or two more. We had a lengthy reference to the stony silence of the people of Singapore on the return of the delegates from London which has been contrasted with the glorious enthusiasm of the merdeka rally at the Kallang Airport a year ago. When that merdeka rally was first discussed, I warned those with whom I was discussing it that it could be a very dangerous occasion, and that to bring 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 people into a large open space of that sort meant that you had a crowd which would be difficult to control. If you added to it impassioned speeches, glamorous flags, all the arts of rousing public feeling, stirring up the crowd with music and songs and dances, cheers and catchwords and cries of merdeka, you would get people excited and you would get - not a rational and serious approach to the real problems before you - but rather an emotional approach which would be liable to explode into emotional action. Well, we got away with that rally very much better than I feared we might have done. In fact, if the platform had not fallen down and if it had not rained and if we had provided alternative loudspeaker facilities from the Airport building, so that the speeches could have been heard, the rally would probably have gone off all right, and there would have been no trouble. But there was a series of mishaps and difficulties and we did have a little trouble. Now, I think, Mr Speaker, that for the record, I ought to make this point. In connection with the merdeka rally, the Member for Cairnhill made a most savage attack on the Press. I have my own disagreements with the Press. Even this morning, one English language newspaper carried banner headlines across the page of an announcement whereas the other English language newspaper carried a front-page story contradicting it. The Press sometimes gets its political wires a bit crossed. In trying to make head or tail of the Singapore political scene - which itself does not always make either head or tail - it sometimes gets into a bit of a muddle, but, on the whole, I do not think that the Press does it on purpose. They do their best in a difficult situation. I certainly do not think that the Press - or Singapore - is benefited by accusing the Press of slimy hatred, or of dishonesty, or of deliberate perversion and distortion of the facts, because that sort of attack lays us open to the danger that freedom of the Press might be lost. We need a Press which is free and which can criticise all of us when we do wrong, and sometimes criticise us when we do right. If the Press is free, it must be free to be unfair as well as to be fair. It must be free to do wrong as well as to do right. That is the meaning of freedom. You can have your choice between whether you do right or you do wrong and it is up to you to choose. Of course, there has to be sonic limitation on freedom. No man is free to commit murder - and the Press is not free to commit libel. But within the limits of what can be tolerated, everybody should have as much freedom as he can and we should tolerate the Press and should encourage it to write freely about the activities of our politicians. Now, the Member for Cairnhill was the prime mover in holding a rally at Kallang Airport, but after the collapse of the platform and the rather unsuccessful speeches that were made from the old Airport building, he left the scene and retired to his seaside house. I did not leave the scene - because I had foreseen trouble. And I felt that it was just as well to be on the spot, because at that time the old Airport building fell within my portfolio as the Minister for Communications and Works, and I also felt myself that I was responsible for the building. So I stayed around and when the trouble started I was well placed to see what was happening. I did see what was happening, and I do not think that in any significant degree the Press did misrepresent the facts, as far as one can know what the facts are, when dusk is falling and the light is not very good, and when there is a confused crowd of people, and it is difficult to tell precisely what they are doing. But I should like to give my personal testimony to the reasonable objectivity and reliability of the Press reports at that time. I think they did their best except, I think, for one reporter serving a newspaper that does not come out in Singapore who, I believe, made a rather wild report. But our local papers, I think, did a very honest and reasonable job. In point of fact, I wrote to the then Chief Minister at that time to say that I thought they had done a reasonable job and that they had been reasonably accurate. I wanted to get that mentioned, Mr Speaker, and I would like to say that, having that memory of the merdeka rally in my mind, I felt that the return of our successful delegation was not an occasion for too much flag flapping and too much stimulus to crowd emotions. I remember very well on the night of the merdeka rally, when I was trying to contact the then Chief Minister, I went to his flat overlooking the Cathedral and the Padang. And from his flat as I was telephoning, I looked out of the window and there was a large procession returning from the Kallang Airport marching along the road towards Chinatown. That procession in itself could have led to further trouble. Luckily, it did not. It was persuaded to disperse but it could have been a further danger to us all. Now, if we had anything of that sort on the occasion of the return of the successful Merdeka Delegation, it would have been, Mr Speaker, a disaster for Singapore. We all know how vulnerable our prosperity is. We cannot live on what we produce. We can only live on the services we render to our trading partners, and if our trading partners are frightened of us, then they will not trade through us. Consequently, when it fell to me to serve as Chairman of the All-Party Committee which was planning the reception of the Merdeka Delegation, I was anxious that it should be on sober and realistic lines and that the people of Singapore should have an opportunity of seeing their returning delegates and welcoming them and hearing what they had to say. After all, they were only returning with an agreement. The actual step forward has not been taken. It is only agreed that we shall be able to take the step forward in due course when the Constitution has been brought into operation. It did not seem to me to be an occasion for too many shouts and excitement because, after all, shouts and excitement will come in more appropriately on whatever day is finally fixed as Merdeka Day (or perhaps we should say "tiga suku merdeka day"?). I think those who were present during the reception to the Merdeka Delegation can well be satisfied that it was a sober and sincere one, in which the people joined with their leaders in recognizing the responsibilities falling on them in greater measure as they went forward towards greater freedom. I have never subscribed to the view that sincerity is proven by loud shouts and waving of hands in the air. To me, sincerity is a matter of doing hard work. If a man will work hard, then he is sincere in the cause for which he is working. The number of fine words he uses or speeches he makes are not in themselves proof of sincerity. Certainly I do not think the people of Singapore need to demonstrate the sincerity of their desire for the responsibilities of freedom by loud shouts and crowd scenes. They can show their sincerity more by solid national effort to make sure that Singapore is a better, happier, cleaner and finer place, by the work of the whole nation, not by the work of only a few leaders. Mr Speaker, Sir, they say that the elephant never forgets. If that is true, then the Member for Cairnhill clearly is not an elephant because sometimes he does forget. Many points have already been made about how he forgot what was fixed in legislation when he himself was the Chief Minister, about what he was willing to accept in London a year ago but which he now regards as pock-marked. We have even heard that, whereas last year he regarded anyone contesting elections under the Rendel Constitution as one of the most advanced lepers to be found, he takes a different view this year. Perhaps it is not necessary to stress too heavily or too lengthily on his lapses of memory, but there is one point which has not been dealt with and on which I ought to touch. I should like, Mr Speaker, to give one reason (I do not think it has yet been dealt with in this debate) why this Merdeka agreement should be accepted and should be acceptable: it preserves the existing link with Great Britain. I am not thinking primarily of the political link - offices in Whitehall and that sort of thing. I am thinking, Mr Speaker, of the commercial and economic link. Singapore, as everyone knows, is a small place with a small population. There is not much point in saying that Singapore has a larger revenue than Panama or a larger population than Newfoundland, and that the latter is a Dominion. After all, if you have the choice of living in Panama or Singapore, I am sure you will prefer to live here. The Member for Cairnhill listed many small countries as being free, independent nations whilst Singapore was crawling in the "colonial muck". Well, I think that, economically, Singapore is far better off in the "colonial muck" than other small countries are with their freedom and independence; and in Singapore, there is probably also a good deal more freedom for the individual. I do not know places well, but I looked up a few references during the last few days (I will not bother to quote them now or else my speech will never come to an end!) but it is sufficient to say simply that Singapore has the highest per capita income and the highest standard of living of the countries in South-East Asia. This is a very considerable achievement, which has been made under colonial rule; an achievement made not because of colonial rule, but because of the fact of Singapore's geographical position and because of the economic links which have been built up in 140 years of trading. It is essential, Mr Speaker, that we should maintain our trading connections. If we can create new ones, that is all for the better. If we can create so many new and secure trading connections that we do not need the old ones, then we can abandon the old ones. But we cannot abandon any of our existing trade without immediately causing suffering to our people in Singapore. We need a stable currency because people buy and sell through Singapore, and make use of our banking and insurance services, and all the other skills accumulated here which are our greatest assets. People need to have confidence in the currency which they use, and it is of the greatest advantage to us that we should have a Singapore or Straits dollar which is stable and recognised as a reliable currency in which you can trade, and which will not suddenly let you down. For that reason alone, we must retain our links with the sterling area, at least until we have something else ready. If we can ever find something else, by all means let us consider it; but as long as we have not got an alternative, we must retain the situation which has given us a reliable currency. In the same way, the general pattern of our trade links us up with the rest of the free world, in particular the sterling area. I remember, Mr Speaker, that in an earlier debate in this Assembly, I dealt with similar questions about Singapore, and I would like to remind Members of my remarks and of the alternatives before us. Singapore cannot stand alone. It must be associated with one of the big power groups in the world. Whether militarily or economically, we have to be linked with someone. What are the three power groups? There is the United States of America and those associated with it; there is the Commonwealth of Nations; and there is the Communist bloc from Eastern Europe to the shores of China. We have to choose between these three; there is no other major grouping to which we can belong or with which we can associate. I do not think that there will be any marked advantage in transferring our association with the United Kingdom to the United States - if one is the frying pan, then the other might be the fire. If we have to choose between these two groups, there will be no particular point in leaving Whitehall for Washington (In fact, this is not practical politics and nobody is considering it). The only alternative to Whitehall and Washington is Moscow and Peking, and here, Mr Speaker, I should like to develop a short geographical argument because, in thinking about the present Merdeka agreement, we have to look beyond, to our future constitutional progress and our future relationship with those around us. If you will conjure up in your mind's eye, Mr Speaker, a large map of the world with the North Pole at the top, you will find that, going southwards, you immediately get out of the ice and snow (in fact before you get out of the ice and snow), you run into Russia and China. Long before Communism dominated that large part of the world, academic teachers called geo-politicians developed the theme that there was a heart-land in the world and that whoever ruled that heart-land would ultimately rule the world. This heart-land is the vast area from Eastern Europe across to the China coast, the area now held and controlled by Communism. In many ways, Communism is a very appropriate form of government for these large territories where previously there had been a complete breakdown in government and a high degree of inefficiency; and it may well be worth the while of the people living there to sacrifice their freedom in order to have stable governments which will carry out economic development. Now around this enormous heart-land with its tremendous wealth in population and natural resources, there lies a fringe running from Japan down to the Philippines, Borneo, Vietnam, Siam, Burma, India, Pakistan, through the Middle East countries of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, through Greece round to Italy, till you come to Britain and finally to Scandinavia. These countries form a narrow fringe around this enormous solid bloc under Communist control. Anybody who ponders on the strategy of World War III can see that - well, I will leave the question of military strategy alone, Mr Speaker, I do not think it is highly relevant to this argument - but what is relevant to the argument is the strategy of trade until World War III takes place, which please God it never will. If Singapore were to fall within the Communist heart-land, if its boundaries reached forward to envelop Siam, Malaya and Singapore, we will lose our present advantageous trading position and enter a period of poverty and suffering. This is because Singapore now lies centrally to the fringe-lands of the free, non-Communist world: it is able to trade because it lies centrally to the natural trading routes. If you pick up a map, you will see, converging on Singapore, the sea and air routes of world trade and world movement. Because of this, we live; without it, we die. If we fall into the Communist sphere, we shall no longer be central to the world and there will be no reason why trade should pass through Singapore. Hongkong is a different case altogether. It is outside Communist China but at any time it can be taken into Communist China, although if both parties wished, it could always remain a valuable trading position because it lies so close to the vast areas of China. But if Singapore falls within the Communist empire, there will be no reason why a merchant should trade from here except in so far as he trades with the free world, and even then he will find it more convenient to trade from elsewhere. I cannot imagine that goods will be sent from Leningrad to Canton by sea via Singapore. If we fall within the Communist empire, we should, by that single fall, lose our trade almost wholly and totally, quite apart from the fact that there will then inevitably be embargoes, blockades and other cold war devices inflicted on us. Therefore, until there are changes in the international world of politics, it seems to me inevitable that Singapore should retain its links with its old trading partners and, in particular, with the sterling area and the Commonwealth of Nations. The time may come when other choices will be available, and we should all be looking forward to them, continually examining new possibilities, because it is by willingness to examine possibilities that we can hope to expand our trade. But until we have found a definite alternative, it will be most unwise to abandon our present connections. What we can do is to maintain them, to live freely and prosperously within them. To be a trading partner is a happy and useful thing, and there need be no stigma of colonialism or imperialism, because if we are an efficient trading centre we serve our friends and our friends serve us. Another aspect of our trading functions, Mr Speaker, is that we are a shop, or a public market, if you prefer it. To us come customers from all over the world. They come because our market is well placed. We are a convenient shop on a corner site with main roads all around us, and so the customers come. But it is not absolutely essential for them to come here; and if our shop is continually closed to business and you never know when it is going to be opened or not, people will come less often. If our shops are closed by a strike or riot, or through emotional outbursts, then the ships which normally come to Singapore will go elsewhere, and once they start on different routes, they will perhaps tend to stay there. Once they build up a connection with another port, with new agencies, new crews and so on, they will, through the sheer inertia of daily life, be reluctant to come back to Singapore. If we look forward to expanding our shop, getting more customers, we must be certain that we have peace and good order at home. Customers do not like the shopkeepers suddenly beginning to fight one another, nor do they like to get beaten up incidentally. As an international sea and air port, we cannot afford to let visitors remind themselves that one of their countrymen was killed here last year and feel quite unhappy about coming here. Well, fortunately on the whole, our name has remained good in spite of certain incidents, but there is a limit, and a very dangerous one, to the tolerance of the people we need as our customers. As long as they can make profit, people who trade will seek to make them, but they are not going to risk their capital and profits in a place where they do not feel any confidence in the stability of the government or the stability of the currency. Well, we all know the saying about a bull in a china shop. I have said that the Member for Cairnhill is clearly not an elephant because his memory is not always perfect, but we may perhaps compare him with a bull in the Singapore china shop, because he has ideas which are not likely to preserve all the contents of that shop in good order. The Member wants immediate election very, very quickly, without proper preparation and based on a curious "half-baked" register which is not properly drawn up. His original idea, I think, was to have elections in August, to be followed by further ones two years later based on a new register. Sir, we cannot afford to have continual elections in a place like Singapore. Once in four years is clearly as much as you want - five years perhaps - because every time an election is pending, customers coming to Singapore look around and say, "Well, I think I will wait until the election is over and see who has come into power before I put down my hundred thousand or million dollars" - in building a factory or a new office building, or in the other money transactions which are necessary for us to do our trade. If we live under the permanent shadow of new elections, people will say, "Well, I think I will put my money in Canada, where I know I can get a very good return; it has a booming economy and is the place where I feel I can be sure things are going to go on quietly and nicely." If we want to compete for the trade of the world, we have got to satisfy our trading customers. Apart from the fact that too frequent elections will inhibit investment, there is the fact that every election is naturally a time when people make fiery speeches and get excited, and there is also the danger to which I referred at considerable length just now, that in the end we shall perhaps get people turning from throwing hard words at each other to throwing hard stones. In our elections in 1955, for example, there were occasions when crowds turned out to be mixed ones of supporters of different Parties, and on at least one occasion, a leading member of the Labour Front received an urgent telephone call and had to hurry out to a rural area where he had to interpose bodily between two small groups of people already at the stage of insults and who probably would shortly have come to blows. That threatened violence was avoided, but the history of elections in Britain shows that there was an enormous amount of violence at election time and quite frequently large numbers of people were killed. Well, Britain could stand that 150 years ago, but Singapore cannot stand it today. That is another reason why we want an election which is properly prepared for by serious Parties with serious programmes really concerned with the welfare of Singapore: we do not want an election to be fought on an emotional issue. But I do want to make this point - which perhaps I am labouring a little bit too much. Mr Speaker - that if we want trade to come here, we have to show ourselves to be a sober trading community. I remember being very struck by a situation at the Naval Base sometime ago. The Union there had proposed a strike because there was some question of redundancy. I made a few enquiries very informally and gathered that one reason for the redundancy would lie in the fact that not so many ships were coming in for dockyard facilities. And of course the more strikes there are at a dockyard, the fewer will be the number of ships to be docked there. Obviously, nobody will plan to send his ship into a dockyard and find he cannot get it out again six weeks after the due date because all the workers have been on strike, or plan to send it in on a certain date and then find he cannot send it in on that date because the dockyard is closed. People will send their ships elsewhere, and the more you go on strike, the more you will decrease the amount of work to be done and increase redundancy. The same applies to almost everything else. Strikes are sometimes necessary, and it is the duty of good trade union leaders to decide when they are so and must be staged, and when they are unnecessary and can be avoided. But as in war, a strike always leaves both sides worse off. Individual strikers may sometimes win personal gains, but the country as a whole will have suffered a loss of wealth. The wealth may or may not have been redistributed to some extent to the benefit of workers, but the total amount of wealth to be distributed is less. When I argue for a sober approach to our political problems, for absence of emotional excitement which can sometimes lead to violence, I am not arguing for trade in the sense of profit for the orang kaya, the millionaires, but in the sense of providing the daily rice, the daily livelihood, of workers. Singapore must trade. If we do not trade, we starve, and the first to starve will be the poorest. Now, Mr Speaker, I ought to turn to one point which has not been fully cleared up in the previous speeches. I refer to paragraph 39 of the Report on the Constitutional Conference this year. Perhaps I had better read it, as Members may not have copies in their hands: "Requests by Her Majesty's Government for action to be taken by the Singapore Government which in the view of Her Majesty's Government was necessary for the discharge of their responsibilities for external affairs or defence would consequently fall to be discussed in the Inter-Governmental Committee."- that is the consultative committee- "We do not expect any practical difficulty in determining what are matters of external affairs or defence. We agreed, however, that it should be open to the Government of Singapore to request that any matter should be referred to the Internal Security Council to decide to what extent, if at all, it lay within the functions of the Council. 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." Now, paragraph 40 is connected with this. It 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) (which relates to the implementation of requirements of the Internal Security Council) should be 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." Now, Mr Speaker, I would refer to the Report in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956. On page 69, in Annexure L, "Constitutional Proposals by the United Kingdom Government", are mentioned proposals offered by the Secretary of State and to which the Member for Cairnhill referred in his speech. Proposal No. (22) on the Constitution reads: "The High Commissioner normally to exercise his powers in respect of assent to Bills in accordance with the advice of Ministers, -" normally he would act on the advice of the Minister - "but to be required to reserve for Her Majesty's pleasure any bill which in the opinion of the Defence and Security Council prejudices the exercise of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities in the field of external defence and external affairs." I am sure, Mr Speaker, that your fine legal mind penetrates fully through the rather cumbersome wording of these paragraphs and I do not want to take up an undue amount of time in dealing with them. The point I am seeking to put across is this: that in the offer of 1956, the question of these Bills being reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure was to be decided by the Defence and Security Council, on which the colonial power had the effective strength; what has been secured this time is not less than what was offered last year, in fact, it is very much more, because it is open to the Government of Singapore to request that any matter should be referred to the Internal Security Council. If the Singapore Government says. "We want this, please, to go to the internal Security Council," then it must go there and that Council will decide to what extent, if at all, that matter lies within its functions. "Except to the extent that the Council decided that the 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 other words, the Malayan-controlled Internal Security Council can decide whether or not a Bill is to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure. The power of decision in the 1956 proposals lay with the colonial power; in the 1957 agreement, it lies with Malayans sitting together on the Council as brothers in a common effort for the prosperity of the joint territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. This is a most important and significant gain over what was offered in 1956, and one for which we should be heartily thankful to the All-Party delegates. It is a gain of fact in that it gives an additional guarantee of the freedom of action of the Government, and also serves as a guarantee of the close association of the two territories. We do not expect any practical difficulties in determining what are matters of external affairs or defence, but if there is any doubt, then it goes to the Internal Security Council, and it is most desirable that the two territories, Singapore and the Federation, should be closely linked together in the work of relating themselves to the world around them. They should not regard themselves as separated at home or abroad: they should stand side by side with regard to their internal problems and also to their external problems. If they do not, then gradually or rapidly, our national wealth and our national aspirations will go down and the future will become increasingly dark and dangerous. We need all the friends we can get and, above all, we need our friends in the Federation, and one important aspect of this agreement is the extent to which it makes necessary, and provides opportunitites for, friendship between the two territories, friendship to be expressed in a practical way in the daily affairs of life - not in words, like the ones I am now uttering, which pass over the heads of those around and are lost, but in the actual work of deciding on particular problems, getting down together and seeing whether our minds move on the same track or not. That is the way in which you learn to understand true character, when you work together and can make a judgment on the basis of your work. And that is what I hope we shall get as we work together with the Federation in implementing this agreement. We shall understand how their minds work: they will understand how our minds work. And because we understand, we shall come closer together. We shall see each other's problems, and see our own problems through the eyes of others, and the way will be opened for a considerable advance towards our great objective (which I hope is not too far off) - merger between the two territories. I will not take further time on this point, Mr Speaker. I have perhaps stressed my points at undue length, to express my firm rejection of this amendment and my firm acceptance of the original motion. 3.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer you once more to the motion standing in the name of the Hon. the Chief Minister? He asks: "That this Assembly-

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

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

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.