Hansard, 1957-04-29

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

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 Order. The Chief Minister is becoming unparliamentary. I think I cannot allow the word "scurrilous".

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 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.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 And Internal Security Council.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 The composition of the Internal Security Council was discussed at a very early meeting-

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 Composition of?

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 - 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-

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 I wonder if I could draw the attention-

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 Is it on a point of order?

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 No, Sir.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 If the Chief Minister will give way. The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 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?

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 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.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 Read the last sentence of paragraph 52.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 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.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 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.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 And justice.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 Order.

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 May I have the hon. Member's indulgence, please?

CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957 Sorry.