Hansard, 1961-03-02

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on question [1st March, 1961], "That this Assembly takes note of the Report of the Inquiry Commission into certain allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly on the 10th and 12th December, 1960, as contained in Paper Cmd. 7 of 1961, and condemns Mr Ong Eng Guan for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly."-(The Deputy Prime Minister). Question again proposed. 2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the findings of Mr Justice Chua in the Commission of Inquiry into the allegations made by Ong Eng Guan in this Assembly against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law in December 1960 show conclusively that Ong Eng Guan is an inveterate liar. During the one year that Ong Eng Guan served as a Minister in our Government, his low intrigues and cult of individualism as against collective leadership and responsibility resulted in his expulsion from the People's Action Party and the Government Bench. Even as a Member of the Opposition, Ong Eng Guan had a role to play, but again within short space of five months, he revealed his true nature of unprincipled and irresponsible conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people of Singapore by persisting in spreading malicious falsehoods, knowing them to be false. It has been alleged by Ong Eng Guan and his cronies that his freedom of speech had been curtailed even before his expulsion from the People's statement of fact and it is important to refer to page 5, paragraph 13 of the Report of the Chua Commission of Inquiry which states: `Mr Ong Eng Guan stated that whatever he had to say had been said in his examination-in-chief. Towards the end of his evidence, Mr Ong Eng Guan, in answer to my questions, expressed himself satisfied that he had been given every opportunity to say what he wanted to say and to call all relevant witnesses, and that there had been no attempt to silence him in this Commission.' And what was the end result? The last two sentences of paragraph 14 of the Report are clear: `Mr Ong Eng Guan, however, had nothing to disclose. He did not even have any facts on which he based his allegations.' It should be noted too, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the subject of inquiry under the Commission were the same three allegations which Ong Eng Guan said he would substantiate in this House on 23rd December, 1960, but he decided to run away by resigning his seat in this Assembly on 29th December, 1960. Instead of substantiating his three allegations in the Commission of Inquiry, Ong Eng Guan offered the childish explanation that his solicitors had advised him that he had not made any allegations at all but only merely making an inquiry. As is well known, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law and Ong Eng Guan is not an illiterate man. He is a graduate of Melbourne University and a practising accountant. However, even assuming the fact that Ong Eng Guan and his solicitors did not know the meaning of the word "allegation", then what did Ong Eng Guan mean when he said these brave but foolish words in Hansard, Volume 14, No. 10, dated 23rd December, 1960, at column 871: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to substantiate all the things I have said.' The substantiation never came, neither in this Assembly when he chose the coward's way of running away by resigning, nor in the Commission of Inquiry. To have failed in substantiating his three allegations was bad enough, but in the Commission of Inquiry, Ong Eng Guan made further allegations against the Prime Minister. See the first sentence of paragraph 11 of the Report: `Mr Ong Eng Guan in the course of his examination-in-chief made further allegations against the Prime Minister.' These were just as reckless and groundless. I shall only refer to one - unfortunately in which I am indirectly affected - in which he claimed, with regard to the question of my nomination, or rather the rumour that I had resigned from my insurance company to become a candidate for the P.A.P., which was untrue at that time, that he then got the Party's Chairman (Dr Toh Chin Chye), now the Deputy Prime Minister, to see the Secretary-General and that the question was resolved with the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. threatening to resign unless certain people were nominated. But when Ong Eng Guan was asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the People's Action Party was to be called as a witness to this so-called episode, Ong Eng Guan saw no point in doing so, and it was left to the Commissioner to call Dr Toh Chin Chye; and it has been proved that Dr Toh's evidence did not support the story of Ong Eng Guan. I quote paragraph 11 of the Report, 7th line from the bottom of page 4: `Dr Toh Chin Chye further said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew never mentioned that he would resign or threatened to resign from the Party or its leadership if Mr Yong Nyuk Lin was not nominated. I accept the evidence given by Dr Toh Chin Chye. In fact, Dr Toh Chin Chye's evidence was not challenged by Mr Ong Eng Guan.' This proves that he who lies must have more lies to support his case and all that is needed is to disprove one lie and the full pack of lies crumble down. The Opposition has tried to allege that the People's Action Party won the 1959 general elections because of Ong Eng Guan. This is not true. It was the P.A.P. which built up Ong Eng Guan. It was the good work of the Party and its 13 City Councillors which delivered the goods. Of course, Ong Eng Guan wants to take the credit for everything. Unfortunately, Ong Eng Guan was an ambitious and a power-crazed man, and that proved his undoing and he won the disrespect of his colleagues. He is a mentally sick man who would lie in order to gain a point. He speaks on the spur of the moment and, being an opportunist and without principles, has degenerated into becoming a habitual liar. Yesterday, the Member for Aljunied mentioned that his colleague would stand for the Hong Lim, by-election. It is quite clear, Sir, that the attitude in which the Member for Aljunied spoke was like a master and servant attitude. Perhaps, since Ong Eng Guan is no longer a Member of this House, it would have been more appropriate if the Member for Aljunied had used the terminology not of his "colleague" but his "master". We all know that at election time all sorts of charlatans, cranks and quacks also present themselves as candidates before the voters. Only unprincipled politicians think they can fool the people. There is a saying that you can fool some of the people part of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Let us therefore not under-rate the intelligence and the commonsense of the electorate and that they are unable to distinguish between right from wrong, truth from lies and integrity from corruption. In the long run, truth will always prevail. This Report is clear and concise. Ong Eng Guan is to be emphatically condemned by this House for his dishonourable conduct in being a purveyor of malicious falsehoods and bringing the dignity of this House into disrepute. The motion of the Deputy Prime Minister is to be supported in no uncertain terms and Members of the Opposition who choose either to abstain or to reject the motion plainly show where they stand - that is, they stand for untruths and lies. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, before I go into the findings of the Commission, may I touch on the statements made by the Member for Aljunied? What he said yesterday, was that he disagreed with and rejected the Commission's findings. But on what grounds has he or his colleagues got to disagree with and reject the findings of the Commission's Report? If he and his colleagues have any reasonable grounds whatsoever to disagree with the findings of the Commission, then they should have come out with reasons, so that at least the people of Singapore or in the near future the electorate of Hong Lim will know why the Member for Aljunied and his colleagues disagreed with the Commission's findings. But the Member for Aljunied preferred not to come out with any reasons whatsoever to say that he and his colleagues disagreed with the Report. Instead he made an announcement that Mr Ong Eng Guan will be contesting the by-election in Hong Lim. But we the P.A.P., since the formation of the P.A.P., have met these challenges. This sort of challenge is not new to the P.A.P. In 1957 the P.A.P. met the challenge in a by-election on a constitutional issue. The P.A.P. Secretary-General accepted that challenge. But what happened? The person who challenged absconded. He never faced the P.A.P. in that by-election. In 1958, it was the Kallang by-election. Even though much had been said about the P.A.P. City Councillors and the P.A.P. Mayor and what they did in the City Council since 1957, all the Right-wing groups in Singapore ganged up together to smash the P.A.P. in the Kallang by-election. But the P.A.P., with determination and mass support, faced it. What was the result? The P.A.P. won. That in itself shows that the P.A.P. can still face any sort of challenge from Left-wing opportunists or the Right-wing reactionary groups of political parties in Singapore. I rise to inform my friend the hon. Member for Aljunied, to make sure that on Nomination Day his colleague will not betray him but will be in Hong Lim to submit his Nomination paper. Before he made the announcement, he should have made it clear that his master or his colleague, Mr O.E.G., will be there on Nomination Day to sign his paper. The man who brought up the P.A.P., as the Opposition has said; Mr Ong Eng Guan brought up the P.A.P.? Nonsense! The P.A.P. brought Ong Eng Guan up. And since the P.A.P. brought him up to this position, and he could betray the Party, then my advice to my friend, the hon. Member for Aljunied, is to see that Ong Eng Guan will not betray him even on Nomination Day. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the lengthy speech of the hon. Member for Cairnhill. In this Assembly, the Member for Cairnhill has often given the impression that if there is no Lim Yew Hock Government, then there will be no internal self-government in Singapore. I will say this: if there is no P.A.P., if there is no mass support for the P.A.P., and if there is no trade union backing for the P.A.P., then I should say that the past Lim Yew Hock Government was even prepared to work under the Rendel Constitution as stooges of the colonial government. Because the P.A.P. put up a strong fight, and the masses were behind the P.A.P., that is why the Lim Yew Hock Government had to go to the United Kingdom for a new constitution. That was no credit for the S.P.A. or the Labour Front, because the P.A.P. agitated for it, and the people of Singapore know that the P.A.P. took the risk courageously, and the S.P.A. or the Labour Front would not risk it. They know it, and the British Government knows it too well, that the only Party with mass backing, the only Party with full mass support, is the P.A.P.; and they have no other alternative, but to agree to a new constitution. The second point, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Cairnhill was saying yesterday that he started his political career in 1948. He started from Keppel, shifted to Havelock, and then to Cairnhill. Now I say, he started from the Western Ocean, now he is going to land in the Eastern sea, and that would be his end! He toppled over the vessel's side and started from the sea! So he shifted and shifted his way and is going to the Eastern sea! I hope that will be his end, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody is looking anxiously at the forthcoming by-election and its issue. But we, the P.A.P., are prepared and ready to face the electorate of Hong Lim. But one thing - and the P.A.P. would like to make this clear - even though the Opposition have made it clear that they are not in any way connected with Mr Ong Eng Guan, still the line they are taking now and Ong Eng Guan's line are the same. A party which, up to 1960, was saying that Singapore could get independence only through merger. But in 1961 they suddenly changed and they say Singapore must have complete independence of its own and we must fight the colonial government. Eng Guan's line is the same. It was the P.A.P.'s stand from the beginning after 1957, when the Constitution was agreed upon, that the P.A.P. would like to have independence after merger with the Federation of Malaya. And today, the Right-wing party which opposes a Left-wing government fighting against colonialism comes out openly and says, "The P.A.P. is a stooge of the colonial government. The P.A.P. does not like independence." I think that is exactly the same line as Eng Guan took in the Assembly. That is why I say, even though they declare in the Assembly that they are in no way connected with Eng Guan, but in underground they are backing Ong Eng Guan for their self-interest. And in the Hong Lim by-election, we will have to expose these Right-wing politicians and the Left-wing opportunists. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a smear going around that the trade union movement is no longer supporting the P.A.P. nor are they going to support the by-election. This is another trick just to split the P.A.P. and the trade union movement. But we are sure that in this issue which is immediately facing the Party, the Government and the country as a whole, the trade union movement will go all-out in force to see that the people of Singapore, especially the electorate of Hong Lim, support the P.A.P. stand on this issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mr Ong Eng Guan suddenly changes his mind on Nomination Day and decides not to contest in Hong Lim, then I hope his colleague, the Member for Aljunied, will be there at least to see the P.A.P. candidate there. 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recollect the extraordinary conduct of the Member for Cairnhill when he rose to speak on the motion yesterday afternoon. The Member for Cairnhill worked himself up to a frenzy and spoke with great vehemence, quite naturally drawing return fire from the Government Benches. On several occasions during these exchanges, you, Mr Speaker, had to intervene in the interest of order. I was at first puzzled at the strange conduct of the Member for Cairnhill. So after his speech, I met the Prime Minister in the C.P.A. Room and asked him, "Why was Lim Yew Hock raving like a madman?" The Prime Minister replied, "Don't take him seriously. He was merely play-acting." Now, I want to explain to the House the reasons which, to my mind, led the Member for Cairnhill into this exhibition of play-acting. I have no doubt that the leader of the S.P.A., the Member for Cairnhill, has suddenly discovered that he had led the S.P.A. into an ambush. The S.P.A. wanted to destroy the P.A.P. at all costs, and, being the Opposition Party, it was within their right to try to achieve this object. They thought they found in Ong Eng Guan a useful instrument for discrediting the P.A.P. So when Ong Eng Guan made his reckless allegations, the S.P.A. calculated that even if a large number of these allegations were discounted, there must be a residue of half-truths still there. Ong Eng Guan, as a former member of the Party who held high posts in the past, according to the Opposition, was in possession of damaging Party and Government secrets. So therefore it was in their interest, or so they thought, to encourage Ong Eng Guan to press on. That was the reason for giving Ong Eng Guan not only their secret support but open encouragement. When Ong Eng Guan resigned his seat in this Assembly, there was a risk that he might scuttle not only from this Assembly but from the by-election as well. So while the S.P.A. announced in advance that they would not contest the Hong Lim by-election, they hoped to have other conditions obtaining -that some people could be deluded into voting for this P.A.P. renegade. But to their discomfiture, they discovered that the Commission of Inquiry cleared the P.A.P. Ministers concerned of any vestige of suspicion. Furthermore, the Commission found Ong Eng Guan to be a liar, a perjurer and a bigamist. The S.P.A., therefore, suddenly found themselves in a position of open support for a perjurer and a bigamist. They had walked straight into a trap of their own making. There was no escape. The Member for Cairnhill, therefore, decided to hit out all-round so that, in the frenzy of his words, people would lose sight of the predicament in which he had placed himself and his party. That is why we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Member for Cairnhill yesterday fulminating and gesticulating. Sir, in the course of his speech, he made a number of allegations which can hardly be expected to go unchallenged. I will deal with some of them, and no doubt my colleagues will dispose of the rest. Some of these charges have no direct bearing on the motion. But nevertheless, as these issues have been raised, you will no doubt permit me to reply to them. I myself am directly concerned with one of the wild swipes which the Member for Cairnhill let fly. He says that I, as Minister for Finance, went to London begging for money. Sir, that is a gross and malicious distortion of the truth. Everybody is fully aware of the reasons for the London talks held between the Singapore and British Governments last August. We told the British Government that since defence was their constitutional responsibility, it was their duty to make adequate contribution to the upkeep of our local defence forces. If no adequate contribution was forthcoming, then we would be prepared to abolish the defence forces. And indeed a number of ancillary services have been so disbanded. But the British Government agreed to make financial contribution for the maintenance of some of the more essential units. But by no stretch of the imagination can our request that the British Government should meet its moral obligations in respect of defence be considered as begging. Then there was the contribution for the expansion of the airport facilities. The authority to license routes of airlines making use of the Singapore Airport vests in the British Government and not in the Singapore Government. As such, it was only right and proper that the British Government made an adequate contribution for the expansion of the airport services. Nothing could be more foolish than to suggest that this stand of the Singapore Government amounts to begging. The third item was over Exchequer loans. Here again we were not asking for free money. These loans are to be made on normal terms governing British Exchequer loans, which are made between one Government and another. These loans have to be repaid, and the borrower has to pay interest at the current market rate. Loan negotiations between Governments are a normal part of the financial activity of any government. All governments, even the wealthiest, have at one time or another occasion to resort to borrowing from other governments. When the Member for Cairnhill calls it begging, obviously this is a case of sour grapes, for when his Party formed the Government they were unaware of the external financial resources which were available to Singapore to finance its development programme. Another comment of the Member for Cairnhill which deserves special attention is this. He deplored the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry because it had led to what he termed "character assassination". Now what does this so-called "character assassination" consist of? It is no more than that the Commission found that Ong Eng Guan was legally married to another woman when he took his second wife to Hong Kong to be married. Now who is to blame for raising this bigamy issue in the proceedings of the Commission? May I - read an extract from paragraph 12 of the Report? The Commissioner says: `Although the Prime Minister did not bring this question of multiplicity of wives in this Commission, Mr Ong Eng Guan insisted (his counsel supporting him) that he should be allowed to clear his name. I, very reluctantly, allowed him to do so lest it be said that I wanted to silence him.' I was present during this part of the proceedings of the Commission. According to my recollection, the Commissioner on no less than three occasions refused to allow this issue to be brought up. But finally he was prevailed upon by Ong Eng Guan and his counsel. That, of course, took the lid off, and Ong Eng Guan had only himself to blame for widening the scope of the Inquiry to cover his own private life. There was no character assassination; first, because Ong Eng Guan has no character to be assassinated; he was simply a liar and a scoundrel. Secondly, assassination means the murder by one party of another. In the proceedings of the Commission, what took place cannot be described as assassination. It was a simple case of suicide. Ong Eng Guan himself brought up the subject, and he has to take the consequences of his own stupidity. Another foolish accusation levelled by the Member for Cairnhill was that my colleague, the Minister for Culture, had fired the first shot in the Hong Lim by-election. He regarded the speech of the Minister for Culture as a piece of electioneering. I myself consider the clear and dispassionate analysis of the Minister for Culture to be an attempt to bring together the complicated threads of this episode to show a pattern of underlying political forces attempting to make use of Ong Eng Guan to advance their own interests. This was a piece of political analysis, not political electioneering. But I cannot say the same for the speech of the Member for Cairnhill. He was electioneering, nakedly and unashamedly. Let me recall some of the statements made by him. He stated - echoing Mr Ong Eng Guan - that it was Ong Eng Guan who, as Mayor of Singapore, created the mass support which carried the P.A.P. into power at the last general elections. The S.P.A. and other Right-wing opportunists can never, or will never, see that the P.A.P. has built up its mass support on the basis of its own programme and its consistent and determined fight against all forms of oppression. But to ascribe the success of the P.A.P. to other forces is an old game played by bankrupt political forces on the Right. Before Ong Eng Guan was ever heard of, the Labour Front, the Liberal Socialists and the Democratic Party - ancestors of the S.P.A. - had in the past vehemently and consistently stated that the mass support which the P.A.P. enjoyed was engineered by the under-cover Communist organisation. Now, if that was so, when the former Labour Front broke up the Communist under-cover organisation, why did the P.A.P. not collapse? If their analysis was correct, then this was the inevitable consequence. But far from collapsing as a result of the 1956/57 purges, the P.A.P. went on from strength to strength. The reasons for the mass support enjoyed by our Party are clearly stated in an article in the Sixth Anniversary Souvenir number of the Party. This is being serialised in the Sunday Mail - and I can only ask Members who seek enlightenment to follow the series with care and attention. To come back to my main argument. The Member for Cairnhill now tries to place the credit for the mass support of the P.A.P. on Ong Eng Guan. If this is not open electioneering by the S.P.A. on behalf of Ong Eng Guan in the Hong Lim by-election, then I do not know what it is. But the statement of the Member for Cairnhill is utterly foolish. When will he understand that a political movement does not depend on individual heroes? The P.A.P. has repeatedly stated that there is no room in the movement for heroic individualism which, far from doing the Party any good, does it considerable harm. If Ong Eng Guan was responsible for the mass support of the Party, then his expulsion from the Party would have seen the withdrawal of this mass support. Only wishful thinkers would believe that this has happened. Anybody present at the Lumumba protest meeting last Sunday could easily have assessed the degree of mass support enjoyed by the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill referred to this meeting. He said that the large attendance at this meeting was entirely due to what he termed "Left-wing adventurers" - a phrase borrowed from current P.A.P. terminology. By this term, he could either mean the under-cover Communist organisation, or the more militant trade unions. I will not attempt to divine his thoughts. But if he had been present, he would have seen that the stadium was packed to capacity long before the organised arrival of the trade union members. They marched in at about 10.30 a.m. onwards, and only a part of the procession organised by these unions could find space in the stadium. May I now turn to the principal issue? It is the contention of my colleague, the Minister for Culture, that in the Hong Lim by-election there is a ganging-up against the P.A.P. This ganging-up is between Ong Eng Guan, a political opportunist without any principle whatsoever but pretending to have Left-wing and anti-colonial principles on the one hand, and on the other hand a group of Right-wing opportunists who had been by-passed by the tide of events. These are the S.P.A. representing pro-colonial Right-wing forces and political mountebanks such as David Marshall and Mrs Leon-Soh. All these groups are smarting under defeats repeatedly administered to them in the past by the P.A.P. They are hoping to experience sweet revenge by manipulating Ong Eng Guan. I do not think this move on their part is at all clever. But they have decided upon this crazy adventure without knowing its full and ghastly implications which only now are unfolding themselves. The S.P.A. disclaim any support of Ong Eng Guan now that the man has been thoroughly exposed. But they say one thing - their actions point to the opposite direction. They now say, when they are cornered, that they do not support Ong Eng Guan. The same way when Ong Eng Guan was cornered in the Commission, he said that he had not made any allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. But this is merely playing with words. We judge a man not merely by his words but by his deeds. If the S.P.A. and other sinister Right-wing forces want to give their support to Ong Eng Guan, so be it. We will take them on in Hong Lim and give them the thrashing of their lives. This is not the first time there has been a ganging-up against the P.A.P. Members will recollect the Kallang by-election when there was another big ganging-up. But the collection of disreputable political forces is no guarantee of victory. May I now pose the issue contained in the Deputy Prime Minister's motion clearly and briefly? We are here to condemn a man who, in effect, had been found by a judicial tribunal to be a liar, a perjurer and a bigamist. The issue is basically a moral one. This Assembly must voice its moral indignation the dishonourable conduct of one of its former Members. It is no use trying to put up pretexts for evading the issue - pretexts which are too flimsy to deceive a child. If the man has been guilty of dishonourable conduct, then it is the duty of this Assembly to condemn him, so that in future rogues and scoundrels will be dissuaded from besmirching the dignity and reputation of the Assembly. I repeat - this is our moral duty and I look forward with interest to listening to what the Member for Tanglin has to say, for he professes to be a very strong upholder of moral principles and a disciple of moral rearmament. Let there be no evasion or side-trackings, and let no one be influenced by political expediency into abstention from voting on this issue. That is the way of a coward. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Aljunied appeared to be picking up the tactics of Mr Ong Eng Guan yesterday. He rejected the Chua Report as being outside the terms of reference, and quoted the P.A.P. comments on the Buttrose Report. The P.A.P. made those comments at a public meeting without protection of privilege, because, if hauled up, they were prepared to justify their views. The Member for Aljunied made his observations as Mr Ong Eng Guan did inside the Assembly. He has not produced one argument or fact to show in what way the findings of the Chua Report are incorrect or outside the terms of reference. Does he or Mr Ong Eng Guan claim that Mr Ong Eng Guan was telling the truth? Will Mr Ong Eng Guan repeat again in public now that he has not the protection of this Assembly that he had been telling the truth when he made the allegations? What of the S.P.A. who have an understandable dislike for Inquiry Commissions? Do they or do they not accept the findings of the Report that Mr Ong Eng Guan lied and that he is a person not to be believed? The truth is that they know that Mr Ong Eng Guan is a liar, and that he lied. They know that the Report of the findings was true, but they cannot admit it publicly, because Mr Ong Eng Guan is their candidate fighting the Opposition's battle. The S.P.A., like Mr Ong Eng Guan, was trapped by their opportunism. Hoping to fish in troubled waters, they rushed to support Mr Ong Eng Guan by saying that they would not put up a candidate in Hong Lim and that he would be fighting the opposition's battle. The Member for Cairnhill said in the Assembly that the by-election is not a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P., but a battle between the Opposition and the Party in power. Mr Ong never repudiated the claim that he was fighting the Opposition's battle and has not done so up to now. These conferences with the S.P.A. and ex-Labour Front lawyers since the censure motion further proved that in his desperation he was willing to become a stool-pigeon for the Right. The spirited resistance put up by the S.P.A. to censure the motion and the repetition by the S.P.A. of Mr Ong Eng Guan's argument that the motion was an attempt to muzzle him, that the by-election should be held before the findings of the Report were published, an agreement not to weaken the chances of Mr Ong Eng Guan by not putting up an S.P.A. candidate so that Right-wing votes would go to him - all these indications of a tie-up between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the Right-wing are clear enough. Having hitched their wagon to Mr Ong Eng Guan, it is now difficult for the S.P.A. openly to accept the findings that the allegations he made were untrue, because then they would have to admit that Mr Ong Eng Guan was guilty of dishonourable conduct; so they studiously avoid pronouncing judgment on the Report's findings because there can only be one judgment. On the one hand, it will not do to nominate him as the Opposition's candidate, and on the other hand, to proclaim that he is guilty of dishonourable conduct. We also feel that Mr Ong Eng Guan and the S.P.A. realise that they have let the cat out of the bag by letting the Worker's Party, the S.P.A. and the Singapore Congress publicly espouse his cause. It must be very embarrassing to Mr Ong Eng Guan to have only Right-wing and opportunist elements publicly speaking up in his defence. By his enthusiasm and lack of subtlety, Mr Ong Eng Guan and his Right-wing backers have revealed more than they intended; so now the S.P.A., in order to retrieve the situation for their stooges, take a new line. The S.P.A. no longer claim that Mr Ong Eng Guan is fighting the Opposition's battle; or as the Member for Cairnhill claimed on 11th January, that the by-election was not a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P., but a battle between the Opposition and the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill took a new line yesterday and said that the fight was between two factions of the P.A.P., and may the lesser evil win. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition are not going to be involved in the Hong Lim fight. As far as the motion is concerned, they are now going to remain neutral, though they have opposed the motion earlier. They will abstain. They have no views whether or not to condemn Mr Ong Eng Guan for deliberately lying under the cover of privilege. Our view is that this decision to abstain is an attempt to cover up the fact that Mr Ong Eng Guan is the tool of the S.P.A. Now Mr Ong Eng Guan can claim that since the S.P.A. is abstaining on the motion, it was clear proof that he did not enjoy their patronage. The S.P.A.'s claim that he was fighting the Opposition's battle was merely a joke and the S.P.A. pranksters are not to be taken seriously. I shall not be surprised, in view of this new line, that Mr Ong will join in the make-believe that he is no S.P.A. tool, and even issues statements denouncing the S.P.A. The people in Singapore and also in Hong Lim are not fools. They can smell out liars and opportunists and Right-wing stool-pigeons. They know that not a single trade union, not a single association outside the Right-wing, has come out in their support. They are not fooled by the "Independence Now" slogans, because Mr Marshall, Mr Lim Choon Mong and even the Member for Cairnhill have also echoed the same slogans. And for the same reason to win support by posing as anti-colonialists. Then why do the S.P.A. want to remain neutral and abstain? The reason is very simple. Because they want to find out if Mr Ong can split the unity of the Left-wing and progressive forces in Hong Lim - a working class area. They want to find out whether the people of Singapore are sufficiently politically conscious to support the principles and policies of the P.A.P., or whether they can be deluded into supporting an individual who uses lies and deceit to build himself up as a revolutionist. If Mr Ong can split the progressive forces in Hong Lim by posing as a revolutionary, by claiming that it was he personally and not the P.A.P. as a movement which brought progress to Singapore and championed the people, then that will be the signal for the Right-wing to launch their counter-revolution. Mr Ong could then be built up with a view to splitting the progressive and Left-wing forces and thus open the doors for a come-back by the Right. If they can help Mr Ong Eng Guan to win in Hong Lim, then the Right-wing would be able to boost the morale of their Right-wing patrons who now see no other way of making a come-back. That is why the Right-wing, led by the S.P.A., are working so hard to enhance the reputation of Mr Ong. A victory for Mr Ong would be a morale booster for the dispirited Right-wing. The S.P.A. no more than Ong Eng Guan believe in the so-called 16 resolutions, but if it would help Mr Ong Eng Guan to split Left-wing unity, then even the S.P.A. are prepared to voice revolutionary slogans. The S.P.A. are using Mr Ong Eng Guan as a test of how useful he could be in dividing the Left and thus opening the way for a resurgence of the Right. In a way, the Hong Lim by-election is not unlike the Kallang by-election. In the Kallang by-election, the then Labour Front joined the Liberal-Socialists, who, in turn, were a coalition of remnant Progressives and Democrats, to see if the united front of the Right could defeat the P.A.P. They failed then, and they will fail in Hong Lim. This time they are using a renegade P.A.P. who has not only turned informer for the Right-wing by pretending to them that he had a lot of secret information to reveal which could damage the P.A.P., but who, has in a desperate effort to stage a political comeback agreed to play the dangerous game of stooging for the Right. So let it be clear to the people that the fight in Hong Lim is not between two factions in the P.A.P. It is a fight between the P.A.P. and the Ong/Lim coalition. What the Right is seeking is not a victory for Mr Ong, who they know is a liar and an opportunist and by no means a revolutionary, but a victory for the Right. Mr Speaker, Sir, the S.P.A. know very well that Mr Ong Eng Guan is so desperate that he would not hesitate to tell any lies to further his own interest and that he is prepared to destroy the P.A.P with reckless lies and slanders. Such a man, the S.P.A. know, can be a useful tool in the Right-wing's scheme to try and destroy the P.A.P. Mr Ong was publicly accused by 22 Assemblymen of telling lies. He was proved to have lied in the Assembly. A Judge found him a man who would not hesitate to tell untruths. If he has lied to his Party colleagues and if he has lied before the Assembly and before a Judge, he is capable of lying in Hong Lim provided he can do it safely. His favourite weapon is either to cast smears or lie secretly to individuals by hole and corner methods where there would be no one to challenge him. In the Party, his tactics were to get individual members quietly to a corner and whisper falsehoods. Never had he dared to utter his falsehoods openly and in the presence of those he seduced. When openly challenged he did the bunk under one pretext or another. Mr Speaker, Sir, a favourite lie of his, and also echoed by the S.P.A., is that this conflict is a personal conflict between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Ong Eng Guan. When pointed out that every P.A.P. Assemblyman, Party members and trade unionists have attacked him as an opportunist who in his desperation is ready to betray and destroy the P.A.P. to further the cause of Right-wing parties, like the S.P.A., he explained that all these men had been intimidated into attacking him. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill said that we should be ashamed of ourselves for denouncing and condemning a party member who was ex-Mayor, ex-Minister and also a very important man in the Party. The mistake usually made by leaders of ruling parties in certain countries in South-East Asia is that they have not the courage to take action against their own colleagues when they find that they are in the wrong; and that is the usual beginning of a corrupt government. We in the P.A.P. will always have the courage and guts to do away on our own accord with any member or any leader who is found to be dishonest, corrupt or against the Party principles. The S.P.A. did not have the courage to take action against Mr Chew Swee Kee, although they knew what he was doing. That was one of the reasons for their downfall. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

It looks to me we should have a ballot for speakers! If there is no other speaker, I will put the Question. 3.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, can I just hold the fort for the Deputy Prime Minister? Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my original intention to speak at length on this debate. The original motion was firstly connected with allegations against me and my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law. On that occasion the Leader of the House made it clear that I had no wish to be a judge of my own conduct and that it was up to other Members of the Assembly to decide the rights or wrongs of the matter. Since then, the matter has been investigated into and findings have been made thereon by an independent person. But what I have to say on this motion concerns not Mr Ong Eng Guan, who has been proved a liar and whom we hope to have the opportunity of meeting again in Hong Lim, if he is so unwise as to appear. But I would like to take this opportunity to make a commentary on what I think is one of the reasons for the failure of the parliamentary type of democratic system in Asia. On several occasions in the past, I have had to underline the fact that the Western type of parliamentary democracy has to be adapted to suit and meet the practical realities of our position. The system of one man one vote, one adult one vote, regardless of whether he has educational qualifications, can ensure that the interests of the majority prevail over the minority, without having to crush and destroy all Opposition, only if adjustments are made to preserve not the forms and frills of the system but its essence - the essence being a relatively tolerant political system which ensures a change in the social and economic order of a society without having to resort to violence. One curious fact which emerges from the experiments in parliamentary democracy in Asia is that it works only when the governing party has a clear majority, and is strong and decisive. Where an elected government is weak and has not got a clear majority, or is composed of coalition factions, then the system breaks down, as it has broken down in Indonesia; as it has broken down in Burma when the governing party, the A.F.P.F.L., broke up into two sections and the Army had to take over; as it threatened to break down in Ceylon under the late Mr Bandanaraike who did not have a working majority and depended on coalition support. And lest we forget, as it threatened to break down in a semi-experiment between the years 1955 and 1959 in Singapore under the government of Mr David Marshall and later the government of the Member for Cairnhill who had to depend on unstable alliances and coalitions, many or all of which were of an opportunistic nature. It is only in India, where the Government (the Congress Party) has a decisive majority and in the Federation of Malaya, where U.M.N.O. has a clear majority, that the attempt to work the Western type of parliamentary democracy has not failed. Sir, Ceylon has been out of the news for some time as an area of strife and instability. I would like to suggest that one of the reasons is that, unlike her late husband's Government, Mrs Bandanaraike at least has a working majority. In the same way, one of the reasons why Singapore is out of the international news columns of riots and civil commotion, economic unrest and political instability, is that there is a government with a clear majority and with a clear mandate on its policy. From these facts and from these phenomena, the conclusion one is forced to draw is that one of the problems that bedevil experiments in parliamentary democracy in Asia is that the opposition often is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to play up to its role within the constitutional framework, and that when the Opposition is strong, it can and often does foul up the working of the system. A proper Opposition - theoretically speaking - opposes the policy of the Government by offering an alternative remedy to economic and social problems, whilst at the same time upholding the institutions upon which the democratic system is based. One of these institutions is, of course, the elected Legislature itself. Unfortunately, most, though not all, oppositions over large parts of Asia are negative in that they have no alternative policy of their own to offer the electorate. They oppose for the sake of opposing not just the Party in power - for that is the legitimate duty and role of the Opposition - but very often they oppose and challenge the institutions of the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Opposition is feeble, and not just in numbers. We have tried, and will continue to try, to make it possible for them to play their proper constitutional role, albeit limited, to criticise Government policies, to offer their own solutions to our problems, in order that at the appropriate time the people can decide between the course of action we offer, as a solution to our problems, and the course of action they offer. But if there is one thing this Ong Eng Guan issue has proved, it is that the opportunity which the Opposition has had to play its role has not been utilised. It is wasted because, from my own observation, it is an Opposition with no fixed beliefs and no fixed political principles. It opposes on the basis of opportunistic political manoeuvring. You will remember, Sir, this matter first arose on 19th December last year when the Leader of the House moved his motion of censure, and an adjournment was sought to the 23rd when it came up for debate. On that occasion the Member for Cairnhill said that this issue - and I quote him from col. 864: `... had made it difficult for the Opposition to enter into this debate which, in the minds and the hearts of the people outside, has nothing but a political motive'. Then you reminded him, Mr Speaker, Sir, of your view of the matter, and he went on to say in col. 865: `What I was going to say was that we on this side of the House think that the right way to discuss this motion is as you have ruled and that we do not give credence to what the people outside say,.'. In other words, if we want to accept the literal, straightforward meaning of what he said, he honestly does not believe that that has a political motive, and one must assume that what the Member said in this House is on the record. However, Sir, in the course of the debate, it is quite clear that Members of the Opposition were not interested in seeing the dignity of the House upheld and the standards of honourable conduct maintained. They were intent on helping to confuse the issue before the people, intent on whether or not to help Mr Ong Eng Guan confuse the issue. But what was the issue, Sir? A Member had made a number of false and baseless accusations under the cover of his privilege in this House against other persons, both in this Assembly and outside. The Opposition was not interested in the harm that would be done to this House if parliamentary privilege was wilfully abused in this way. From what they actually said, I think the truth is that what they were interested in using Mr Ong Eng Guan as a means to confuse the people in the hope that it would weaken their confidence in the integrity of the Government. But what I think they did not realise was that both the legal arguments made in this Chamber and the statements made outside by Opposition Party leaders were calculated to confuse and cloud the issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that on the 23rd December last year, Mr Ong Eng Guan said he was going to substantiate his allegations. Nobody was more surprised and more disappointed than the Members opposite. They showed it in their faces. Here was a man who said he had the dope to kill the Government - political corruption. He said he was going to prove it. They were crestfallen because they knew that Mr Ong had embarked on a perilous course which would lead to his exposure. Sir, if they had wanted to play politics and to play it within certain principles, I would have thought that surely the least they could do was to insist on the grave charges being investigated and thoroughly looked into and placed before the people. For if they were found to be true, or even partly true, then it must mean the fall of this Government and fresh general elections. And it is the duty, not only of the Government but also of the Opposition, to get at the truth, and to see that when such accusations are made against people in high office, they are met. Someone who had been a Minister in the Government alleged that there had been malpractices and political corruption in high places. But the Opposition never showed any interest in pursuing this charge. What they wanted to do, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my submission, was to have a by-election in Hong Lim, whilst these charges were still in the air, left uninvestigated; a mist of doubt and suspicion cast over honest and dishonest alike. Let me put this to the Member for Cairnhill. The Secretary-General of the S.P.A. said in a statement on 7th February - a Press release: `... is an attempt to rouse the S.P.A. into precipitate and hasty action. Much dirt hidden hitherto by P.A.P. leaders has now been revealed. Even the absence of the Party's Organising Secretary from Singapore at this crucial moment is significant.' "Much dirt,", Sir, hitherto hidden. Mr Lim Choon Mong, Secretary-General - not a very important person; not a very responsible officer. But for this to come from the Member for Cairnhill who knew that he would have to come before this House and face us - on the 11th February: `The shameful P.A.P. eruptions and events following had sent up plenty of "dirt". More would be revealed during the by-election at Hong Lim.' "Dirt - more would be revealed". If there is any dirt anywhere, I say it is the duty of every Member of this Assembly to focus public attention upon it, in order that those on whom the dirt rests shall be cleansed out of the body politic. Far from wanting to have the dirt put under a microscope and properly diagnosed, all they were interested in doing was to add more dirt and more smear. These are statements just on the borderline, Sir, They are not specific enough for us to take them up on a challenge, but just enough to insinuate that there was a lot of corruption. But to my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not only unprincipled. Let me assure them that it is a positively dangerous line to take with this Government, being of the character and of the temperament that it is. One thing we must be prepared to do - that each and every allegation of malpractice must be investigated, for the fundamental pre-condition for the successful working of the democratic system is that those who offer themselves as members of the political leadership to implement policies on behalf of the public must be men of some honesty and integrity, in order to make any election pledge and any election programme worth looking into. However, that is only one aspect of the reaction of the Opposition Parties. In this respect, Sir, I would like to say that the Minister for Culture has asked me to mention, since he already spoke yesterday, that when he was referring to the Opposition, he really intended the S.P.A., Lib-Socs and so on. To our minds, U.M.N.O. is in a slightly different category. They are, as I have said at the very beginning,-

Are you going through it all over again?

No. There is a definite distinction. Let us admit it - they went to the Southern Islands and proved they do represent the Malays; and they are tied up with their parent body in the Federation of Malaya. And it is not our business to pick a quarrel with them because of our inheritance. But in any case they have not entered into this issue, not in the way the Member for Cairnhill and his colleagues have done. Sir, these statements by the S.P.A.- by the Member for Cairnhill in this House and by other officials outside - show clearly the minds and the intentions of the Opposition. Accustomed as they are to specific charges being made against them and their members, and having suffered the humiliation of having one charge of corruption proved to the hilt not only against Mr Chew Swee Kee but also against others closely related to the members of their regime, they have never thought fit to meet and answer allegations of political corruption. Perhaps they have different standards of conduct in these matters. Sir, if one wants to be charitable, one would say that perhaps they do not know that the surest way to a quick political demise is to have a charge of corruption stick against you unrebutted. Sir, there are two other aspects in this issue. What is the issue between us and the Opposition? Namely, that we, as the Party in power, have to implement policies. They, as the Party in the Opposition, have the right to criticise those policies as wrong and misconceived, and to put forward their alternative remedies. But one likes to believe that people play this opposition on the basis of certain fixed principles, namely, that you do not shoot the referee or cut the ropes of the boxing ring. What I am suggesting to them in this issue is this. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what they have been doing and what the Member for Cairnhill did up till yesterday is tantamount to a reckless, albeit ineffective and feeble, attempt not to bring the Government down and also to wreck the system by misleading the people as to what this Assembly was about, as to what the issues are. Let me start off with the Member for Hong Lim on the 27th. It is as you have stated, Mr Speaker, Sir. On the 31st December, he made a statement `Mr Ong resigns.' This is not in the Assembly records. He issued a statement published in full, not in full in the Straits Tunes (He has complained of it) - but in full in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh, and I am reading from it. `Ong Eng Guan has resigned his seat in the Legislative Assembly. Whether it is because of the motion moved by the Leader of the House to condemn him for his dishonourable conduct and to suspend him from the service of the Assembly, or because he wished to have his activities in the Legislative Assembly strengthened by the electorate that he tendered his resignation, once he stands for the by-election, he will have to tell the election.' Is there any doubt in their minds what was the cause of all this? `We have no sympathy for Ong Eng Guan.' So says the S.P.A. `Although he started as a Minister before his expulsion through power struggle in the Party, he ended as a Member of the Opposition and in this particular instance [namely, what Mr Ong Eng Guan has been doing], he will, in the by-election, fight in the capacity of the Opposition against the Party in power, which with its majority in the Legislative Assembly can in many respects unjustly silence the Opposition. For this reason, we shall not field a candidate for the by-election.' Silence the Opposition! Did we try to silence Mr Ong? Does anybody in his right mind believe that? But what we wanted him to do was to speak up so that we could expose him and pin him down to the truth. Official Leader of the Opposition, Sir! I mean, we recognise him as such. It is part of the democratic framework that there should be an official leader of the Opposition. He appears in the table of precedence. We pay him the courtesy which his position requires. We hope that he will be able - having held positions of responsibility - and he says `silence him'. It may be funny, Mr Speaker, Sir. But it is not funny when I start reading a few more passages which contradict that. Having said that, he then discovered that it was all a great mistake. Probably Mr Ong must have rung him up and said, `Don't be a silly ass. That is the surest way to kill me.' Because the Minister for Culture immediately went and took up the point and said, `There you are. This proves it. Opposition versus Party in power.' That is what it is all about. It is a gang-up. So the lines were changed. It has nothing to do with this. It is now what he said yesterday. `Two factions in the P.A.P. fighting - pro-Ong Eng Guan versus pro-P.A.P.' A new line! That is a better one anyway. It will help Ong Eng Guan better that way. But he forgot that it was on record as recently as the 11th January. It is on the record, the transcript, corrected undoubtedly by the Member for Cairnhill, because it already went to the Press - so I understand it. `Let me tell this House how that statement should have read if the Press had been fair to the Opposition.' Then he said: `But we did say this: "that because of the fact that the by-election is going to be a battle between the Opposition and the Party in power which, by reason of its majority, could unjustly use its power to silence the Opposition".' On the 11th of January, it was the `Opposition versus the Party in power.' On the 22nd of February, it was no longer that. In fact, it is not even as long ago as the 11th of January. He went on to say - on the same day: `that the Government has no right to think that this by-election is a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P.' Those were honest views; presumably they must have been, Mr Speaker, Sir, because we start off on the assumption that they are honourable Members, and not liars and rogues. Finally, of course, it may well be that we corner the Member and he is left with nothing on him. That is what he said, "a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P." No right to consider that. If the Opposition are interested in this by-election - they want it. Have it now. Never mind the Commission of Inquiry. Let the truth be hidden. I think the most curious of all the propositions that have come out from the S.P.A. is this one on the 4th of February. It shows how rapidly contamination works through association with contaminated people. `S.P.A.'s stand towards the Hong Lim by-election.' They say: `It is a struggle between the Government Party and the Opposition Party.' That is the 4th of February. Two and a half weeks before yesterday, when the Member for Cairnhill decided to change his line. Then he went on to say, of course, all this brother-in-law and bigamy controversy. Mr Ong Eng Guan was trying to laugh it off. He made no allegations. Mr Speaker, I have said what the intention of the Government really is. Anybody who makes a charge is entitled to make it. Once he has made a charge, he gets an investigation, whether he likes it or not. What I said about multiplicity of wives was directed at throwing out Mr Ong Eng Guan, since he refused to give me a chance to sue him. I offered him a chance to sue me in order that he might go into the witness box. I waited a long time for that privilege in order to confront him with the truth. And the Member for Cairnhill expressed his regret that only one had been produced. Sir, I did not want to do more damage to a lot of other innocent young ladies who might wish to live peaceful lives. I only bothered to bring out those who were irrevocably involved. In fact, there were other sorts of common law association which I could have brought out, but we will let these things lie for the time being. And he jolly well knew all this. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, asked me why that man was raving. I said, "Do not believe a word of it. It is all synthetic. He has been at this game for such a long time that he can simulate rage, indignation, despair - best of all, despair, because he has a lot of practice in simulating despair; he has had many occasions genuinely to use it. See what he says: `No bearing on this by-election. That is how the thing cropped up. Hong Lim 16 resolutions.' He never resigned." And indeed he kept on. He was going to be the fierce anti-colonialist. He was going to shout slogans here under cover of privilege and denounce everybody. He did not ever want to resign over the brother-in-law issue. He was going to justify it. He decided to resign because, I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, he discovered that what he was going to say when he justified it, was not going to be said as a Member of this Assembly on privilege, but it was going to be said on oath and subject to cross-examination. When he said, "Yes, I will justify it." perhaps only one other person on the Opposition Bench knew what it meant and his face fell. That man was the Member for Farrer Park, because he could not help saying, "Give the man a chance," when the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to pin him down, "What are your allegations?" "For God's sake, give the man a chance." No, give the convict or crook a chance - to get away.

The accused, not the crook!

He knew what justification meant. It meant substantiation. And when Mr Ong discovered it, he absconded, but not because he was going to fight on behalf of the people. He ran away. This is one of the foolish things he did. If he keeps on doing it. If he runs away from the by-election. He ran away from here; he landed up in the Commission of Inquiry. He thinks he can lightly dismiss the Inquiry and go off to Hong Lim. Then he lands into a bigger mess there, and he runs off to somewhere else. But that is another matter. What is of interest is this. This is an important Party statement - The Opposition, under the oppression of the Party in power - The question is a question of principle, whether there is a chance to survive or to speak. This is from the Nanyang Siang Pau. I do not know why the Straits Times does not publish all these things. It does not do a world of good. It does infinite harm and the Straits Times suppressed these things - I do not know whether wittingly or unwittingly - and saved them from their own folly. I have had this properly translated, Sir, in case it is disputed. I cannot imagine how anybody can, in his right mind, say these things, which are completely at variance with the facts and with his understanding of the facts.

What is the date?

The 4th of February. Can I just read this and get the official translation?

I just want to know the date. That is all.

(In Mandarin): The most important concept is whether the Opposition, under the pressure of the- (In English): `The important point [This is not my translation; it is an official one] is whether or not the Opposition, under the oppression of the party in power, has the chance to survive or to speak.' A question of principle! They can stand up to principles on the basis of the lies, of a perjurer and a bigamist. Principles! Just in case the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Tanglin stand up and disavow all these things, let me cap them all by another quotation from the Member for Cairnhill. The Member for Cairnhill said in the Straits Times of 11th February, 1961: `"We like to make it clear that news releases are the responsibility of the party executive. The chairman and secretary general are the officers authorised to sign such releases, and in their absence, the vice-chairman or deputy secretary-general." '. In case people do not take him seriously enough, he shouts his "independence" line. According to the Member for Cairnhill, a momentous decision was reached some months ago: to be anti-colonialist, to fight for immediate independence. And he kept it a closely guarded secret. One day, the Secretary-General, ex-Lib-soc, ex-Progressive, ex-Member of this Assembly, who used to lighten the burden of our debates by his comic intervention about youth, said that we have been in office for 18 months and we have made slow but nevertheless progress. The Tunku comes out to say that he is satisfied. We never asked him to say this. A German journalist asked him. He said, yes, we were Malayan-minded and he hoped others would be like us. And then progress that comes with a trade revolution. The Member for Cairnhill is not interested in merger. He wants independence now, with the most curious explanation that I have heard. Why do they want independence now? The Member for Cairnhill said since we came in we had made merger impossible. Therefore, we had to fight for independence. I do not know, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether this is seriously put forward as an alternative policy. Sane, sensible men are supposed to put forward this policy to an even saner and sensible electorate. I say to them, "Have the courage to stand up for your beliefs. Send a candidate down to Hong Lim. Shout these slogans and let the people decide." But I have explained the reason why they do not do it is that they have not got the courage of their convictions. The Member for Cairnhill said yesterday, Sir, that this was really a fight between what he called the pro-Lee Kuan Yew group and the pro-Ong Eng Guan group. Sir, these are 39 stooges. Mr Ong Eng Guan also was once upon a time by inference a stooge of mine. What the Member did not go on to say was that the pro-Ong Eng Guan group now includes some very curious fish like Mr R. C. H. Lim, a former Labour Front nominated Member, the Member for Joo Chiat - always absent; he is busy giving advice - Mr David Marshall, who called Mr Ong Eng Guan a hero. Well, a man is entitled to call a chap what he likes. He called Mr Lim Cher Kheng Hero No. 1 . Mr Ong Eng Guan is the second man to wear that medallion. A hero for telling lies. What he did not say also was the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, I do not want to rebut the Member's foolish statements made yesterday. But he did say yesterday in explanation - rather he gave an explanation yesterday. I want to be a little bit careful about this since you were an actor in the dramatis personae of this particular event. He made an explanation yesterday of how Mr Ong Eng Guan knew of the move to condemn him. I had said openly he alerted Mr Ong Eng Guan. He said in his explanation he denied that he alerted Ong Eng Guan. He said he saw Mr Ong Eng Guan and then he said, "You had better ask the Speaker. I do not know." And Mr Ong Eng Guan thereafter went to see you at his suggestion. When Mr Ong Eng Guan came back from seeing you, he (Mr Ong Eng Guan) told the Member for Cairnhill that Mr Speaker said, "Surprise move." But the Speaker is a gentleman. What did he say? "Surprise move."?

P.A.P. bad, man!

Mr Speaker was a gentleman, but he was going to demand notice. The inference left in the air, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that perhaps you told Mr Ong Eng Guan. Sir, you cannot take part in this debate. For the purpose of the record, I think I should mention briefly that you had told me earlier, and you confirmed it with me this morning, that you were surprised when Mr Ong Bug Guan came to see you, that he already knew that a motion was being considered against him, and that you told him you were looking into the procedure on the question of notice. That fairly puts the position. Sir, if I have to choose between your recollection of the matter and the Member for Cairnhill's version of what took place, I think Members of the Assembly will forgive me if I say that I have a preference for your recollection of this matter. Sir, I do not wish to dwell further on the other disparaging remarks about the nature of my evidence before the Commission of Inquiry which the Member for Cairnhill thought fit to make. All I need say is that it was a public Inquiry Commission and the Member for Cairnhill, if he felt that the Commission was being misled, was fully entitled to appear before the Commission to give his evidence and to be cross-examined. However, I can quite understand why Ministers of the last regime have a psychological fear of appearing before Commissions of Inquiry to be cross-examined. I myself remember the tremendous resistance put up when we wanted to subpoena a Minister in the last Government before a Commission of Inquiry. That was about City Council matters. Finally, they decided to pack up the Commission of Inquiry rather than have the subpoena issued against the Minister. Sir, for the Leader of the Opposition adversely to comment in this privileged Chamber on evidence which he did not see fit to comment upon before the Commission was a sad reflection on his standards of public morality. Sir, they have a fight on, and that is with the P.A.P. That is fair enough. It is their business. In this particular issue, however, you were at great pains, Sir, and I must say we never thanked you for it, Mr Speaker, Sir, because we thought it was necessary, if we wanted this Chamber to survive as a place of some decorum, dignity and respect in the eyes of the people, that certain standards of behaviour were maintained. You were at great pains to emphasise and underline the fact that this was a proper disciplinary proceeding and the case had to be decided on the truth and the merits of the case. Sir, regardless of all this, the Member for Cairnhill said, yes, he agreed with the Speaker. That was the right way. He promptly went out and issued a statement to the contrary, and helped to confuse the issue. What they wanted to do was, "Never mind if it brings the House down, so long as it brings the P.A.P down." And our attitude was, "For God's sake, do what you like: but if you try to bring the House down, then you cannot blame the Government if they cease to afford the Opposition the constitutional niceties which often a government affords an official Opposition." Sir, I listened with great interest to the peroration by the Member for Cairnhill in which the most astonishing argument he made was, "Since the Minister for Culture said, `I do not care how the Opposition votes,' therefore I am not going to vote. So there you are." That was what I heard him say yesterday. "Since you don't care, well, I am not voting. So there you are." Sir, I thought that they were in quite a dilemma. They had opposed the Government from the very beginning. The Leader of the House and I took the trouble to acquaint them of the position. This was not a party matter. This was a constitutional matter concerning the whole Assembly. The matter was discussed with you. You said the Opposition had first of all to be kept in mind. Let everybody, in so far as it was possible, be acquainted with the position. But they saw fit to oppose. All kinds of red herrings were drawn across the line. I must say I listened to some of the most tortuous legal arguments that I have ever heard in my life in this Chamber. The plain words of the constitution, the plain words of the Standing Orders, were tortured to mean something else, just to create a state of confusion and doubt. Everybody from the other side of the House was in doubt. However, we knew that they could not vote contrary to the way they voted the last time, because then they would be kicking themselves in their own teeth. But we are glad that they did not have the audacity the second time, in the face of this Report and the evidence that was placed before the Commission, to say that they thought the former Member for Hong Lim was being silenced by the Government. "Silenced by the Government" - a charge they kept on repeating right up till the 11th of February. Sir, I do not know what they intended to do, but I will tell them what they have succeeded in doing. They have succeeded in forfeiting, in my opinion, their own self-respect and in dispelling any hope anyone may have had that, weak though they are, they could yet fulfil the role as a balancing counterpoise within the framework of the democratic system. This motion formally condemns a proven liar, and it is really not necessary other than for the purposes of the record. The lies that have been uttered are recorded in Hansard. Part of the proceedings and the fact that they have been proved lies as a result of this debate also go on the record. But more important, it condemns all those whether in the Opposition inside the Assembly, or outside who tried to cover up Mr Ong Eng Guan's lying tactics by confusing the issue, by insinuations of dirt and more dirt to come, by reckless, unprincipled and cowardly attacks when they were not prepared to make them stick, firmly and formally, or even to back up their beliefs even if they had no evidence. Just back up their beliefs by contesting the by-election. All they can do is to find a stooge to be their proxy for this fight. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, permit me to congratulate the Prime Minister on having made such a thoroughly good prepared speech although he was not prepared to speak this afternoon! The one who immediately follows in the wake of the Prime Minister of course faces a very difficult proposition to match his eloquence, his logic and sometimes his wit. Mr Speaker, Sir, the gravamen of the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon was that the Opposition is unwilling or unable to play its role in the parliamentary system of democratic government. I am very glad that the Prime Minister has, at this late stage in the life of this Assembly, recognised that the Opposition has a proper parliamentary function to perform, perhaps as important as the Government itself has to perform, in a parliamentary system of government. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the time this House first sat up till quite recently you will remember what the Prime Minister's views about the Opposition were - how scathing he was about the Opposition. He thought very little about it. I believe he even once said that the Opposition reminded him of the days he went through during the Japanese occupation when he used to see - I think it was - empty gunny sacks being jabbed at by brave, strong Japanese soldiers. That is how he likened the Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Opposition has not come up to his expectations in this particular debate - and the Prime Minister is entitled to his own opinion just as everyone else is entitled to his - might I tell him that, to a large extent, he is responsible for the present situation? For purposes and for reasons best known to himself, he has within this Assembly and his Party has outside this Assembly made it quite clear that the Opposition was a despicable lot not worth listening to; anything they said was not worth considering; they were politically bankrupt. These were all the phrases he used. The phrase "politically bankrupt" in connection with the Opposition has been used by the Prime Minister himself on a number of occasions. His sole and main purpose was to discredit the Opposition in the eyes of the public and not to give it any status in the parliamentary system of government. Having done that, today when he needs-

I do not need-

- the Opposition more badly, he comes along and says that the Opposition has not performed its parliamentary role in this democratic system of government. Sir, the Prime Minister is very good. He is even better when he is at bay - and he was fairly good today. I think it was a constitutional expert who said that the main function of a government in a parliamentary system of democracy is to encourage the Opposition and to build up a strong Opposition [Laughter]. The Prime Minister laughs and his Deputy laughs, and yet they hold up the lack of support of this motion as a basis for saying-

Lack of principles, not lack of support.

- that we have failed the institution of parliamentary democracy. If I may put it to the Prime Minister - he has a lot to take on his shoulders in all these matters - the business of Ong Eng Guan need not have come to this head had he taken action very much earlier. On a previous occasion in this Assembly I had told him that we could have been spared all these episodes about Ong Eng Guan and these little episodes in the Chamber had he taken action in time. But he did not, because he did not want to save the parliamentary system of government then. He wanted to save his Party. Now when the time has come when he thinks his Party can be saved and Ong Eng Guan jettisoned, the moves against this gentleman start. Mr Speaker, Sir, if, as the Prime Minister has said, the Opposition has taken a line on this motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister which is not in keeping with what you said should be the tone of the debate, might I ask the Prime Minister to indicate where in the course of the debate on the main motion that has taken place? He might have felt it, but there is nothing on record so far as the main motion is concerned to indicate that. If I remember correctly, this was the position. The motion was moved. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke as the mover of the motion, and then Mr Ong Eng Guan started. In the course of his speech, he made certain statements which seemed to give an indication to you that he was challenging your ruling, whereupon, after some discussion, Mr Ong Eng Guan filed a motion challenging your ruling. In those circumstances, the debate on the main motion was then adjourned, and Mr Ong Eng Guan's motion was debated in the House. It was debated on the basis that your ruling in the circumstances was incorrect and that the House had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion. It was, in those circumstances, on a purely legal and constitutional basis that the matter was discussed. The merits of the question whether the conduct of the Member for Hong Lim was dishonourable was not gone into in the debate. It was on a purely legal and constitutional basis that Members of the Opposition spoke; and they had their views. Surely the Prime Minister must concede that not only his views may be right but that somebody else's views may be right; that he is not right all the time? Some of the difficulties experienced in this Assembly arise because the Prime Minister thinks he is always right. If he would only concede that he might be wrong on one occasion and that somebody else might be right on that occasion, then we might get on much better. That might have been much better for the parliamentary system of democracy. The difficulty with the Prime Minister is that he feels that that is the only line on the law which should be taken; no other line is possible. It has been repeatedly made quite clear in this House that if the first part of that motion had been taken on its own, then the question might have been different. But because the first part of the motion which the Deputy Prime Minister moved was coupled with the second part of the motion, it was the second part of the motion which caused all the debate and all the trouble. This is only to show that the Prime Minister was suffering from a delusion when he said that that motion was opposed by the Members of the Opposition. The substantive motion was never before the House for debate. Before that motion could come up, the Member for Hong Lim had already resigned. Sir, as far as the Opposition is concerned, we have tried to discharge what we consider to be our constitutional duties in this House. If the Prime Minister thinks we were ineffective and we were not as good as he might have been in the Opposition, well, he is entitled to his view. But at least we can say that we have done our best, and our best is good enough. If it is merely a question of preserving this system of parliamentary democracy in which the Prime Minister is now so keenly interested, there have been occasions in this House when he seemed to express a doubt whether this system was a good system, but I am glad that in so far as this particular debate and the motion that preceded it are concerned, he did think that this system of government was worth saving and worth fighting over. Mr Speaker, Sir, so much for the Prime Minister; but I must congratulate him on the very sober speech which he did make, and the Opposition is very grateful to him. But I would remind him that the tone of this debate was set by the principal speech made by the Government on the motion, and that was by the Minister for Culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have made it quite clear a number of times and so plain, in fact, that you had to rule and refer a member of the public outside, who had dared to suggest otherwise, to the State Advocate-General. Your contention was that the debate on this issue should proceed on the basis that it was something which was an affront to the dignity of the House. But when I listened to the speech of the Minister for Culture yesterday - and that was the main speech - we were entitled to assume that it was a Government speech on the motion of the Leader of the House. It was nothing but a political speech. He was not concerned with preserving the dignity of the House or with its good name so far as the public outside is concerned. All he seemed anxious to do was to run down the S.P.A. and Mr Ong Eng Guan, and say that Mr Ong Eng Guan had no chance in the Hong Lim by-election. What had the S.P.A. is a Party, what had the P.A.P. as a Party, and what had Mr Ong Eng Guan as a gentleman about to contest the Hong Lim by-election to do with the motion before the House, Mr Speaker, I ask you? If the Government chooses to set the tone of the debate and finally ends up by saying - and looking fierce, as only the P.A.P. can look fierce in one of their fiercer moments - "We don't care what the Opposition does." In fact, the Minister for Culture treated this as a Government motion. The whole trouble in this issue has arisen from the fact that although you yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, with great respect, had ruled that this was not a Government motion or a Party or any other motion but a motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister not in his capacity as the Deputy Prime Minister but as the Leader of the House in whose custody was committed the dignity of this House - on that basis he moved it - but when the Ministers of the Government spoke, they spoke on the basis that this was a Government motion intended to ditch Mr Ong Eng Guan. Now that might have been an accident, but the Minister for Home Affairs did the same thing. He also made it clear that this is a Government motion, that he was supporting the Government and the motion. This is not a Government motion, and yet some of the Back-Benchers also said that they were supporting the Government motion. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, can we on this side of the House be blamed that we have given the impression that this is a Government move intended to ditch an erstwhile comrade and to blacken him in the eyes of the public outside? If they have given us that feeling, who is to blame? They themselves are to be blamed for it. They set the level of the debate yesterday when the Minister for Culture read out his prepared speech to the Assembly. When the Member for Cairnhill replied to him in suitable terms, the Prime Minister turned round and accused him of not paying proper respect to the motion before the House and making his speech political. I am suggesting, Sir, that if the tone of this debate is what it has been, then the fault primarily lies with the Minister for Culture. The Minister for Finance said one or two things which, I think, merit a reply. He talked about the money which he got, and tried to show that he went to the United Kingdom in order to get money for the defence of Singapore. He put it to the British Government that as they were responsible for the defence of this Island, therefore they had to pay for its defence. I think that is a matter which has not yet been settled. If it has been settled, we have not as yet been informed about it. The money which the Finance Minister did receive for his Government was money given by the British Government for development programmes, perhaps at a fair commercial rate of interest; but that was money given to him for development projects and not, as the Minister said, because he put the question that defence should be paid for by the British Government. He also made the point that the Member for Cairnhill talked about character assassination, and that the Report contained nothing about character assassination. I think the Member for Cairnhill did not refer to the Report when he talked about character assassination. I think the Member for Cairnhill said that the evidence given in the commission was of such a nature as to amount to character assassination. I believe the Minister for Finance also defended the statement made by the Minister for Culture on the basis that it was a dispassionate statement. So if the Minister for Finance backed the statement of the Minister for Culture, can we be blamed, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we assumed that that was the line of the Government - that the Government considered this a Government motion and not a motion, as such, moved by the Leader of the House in the interests of the dignity of the House? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Opposition has agreed that a Sessional Committee be set up on this whole business. If our Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance had been in a better state than it is today, quite a lot of this debate, and quite a lot of recriminations that have gone on in this House need not have taken place. It is because the law on our rights and privileges is uncertain that all this debate has taken place. On this matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are very glad that you have now suggested this Committee which will go into this whole question and put it on a proper footing, so that if a similar incident of this nature occurs, there will be no need for a debate of this type anymore. The other point which I wish to raise before you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and which is troubling me from the point of view of the Legislative Assembly, is this. When Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned from his seat, the motion was adjourned sine die. So when the motion was adjourned sine die, Mr Speaker, the House had resolved itself into a Committee to go into the statements made by the Member for Hong Lim and to deliver a verdict on them. In those circumstances the adjournment was -taken sine die, which, in effect, means that the House was still seized of this matter in a judicial capacity. While the motion was before the House, sine die no doubt, the Government saw fit to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite clear whether this appointment of a Commission by the Government while this House was seized of this whole inquiry, is not in itself a breach of the privilege of this House. Some of the Government Benchers are shaking their heads; the Leader of the House is shaking his head. I put it forward in all seriousness, while this Assembly is seized of this matter, that the Government has seen fit to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. And I ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether that is not a contempt of the Assembly, and whether that is not a breach of the privilege of the Assembly. These are some of the matters which should be looked into by this Committee of Privileges. The other point which exercises my mind, as a Member of this Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: that when the Commission first started its inquiry, Mr Commissioner rightly or wrongly insisted that the Member for Hong Lim should give his evidence first. I myself, Mr Speaker, Sir, am not quite sure in my mind whether the Commissioner, in view of section 3 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, was entitled to have the Member for Hong Lim brought before him and subjected to cross-examination in respect of something which he has said in this House. It is a pity the Prime Minister is not here, otherwise he might accuse me of being partisan in the matter. I would like to assure the Prime Minister and his colleagues that I am not being a partisan in these matters when I raise them. I raise them because I myself am as keenly interested in the survival of parliamentary democracy as the Prime Minister is. I think these are important matters. I know there is some doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether section 3 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance protects the State. There is some doubt whether a Commission of Inquiry is either a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if it is not a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding, then statements made in this Assembly can still be gone into by Commissions of Inquiry. If the intention of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance was to give absolute protection to statements made in the House, then this is one way of getting over that protection. As these Commissions are apointed under the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance, it is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who makes these appointments, the appointment of this Commission necessarily rests with the Government. So the position could well be that if section 3 does not protect such a statement made in the Assembly, and if such a statement is made by a Member of the Government, then the Government might choose not to recommend to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to appoint a Commission of Inquiry; but if the statement is made by a Member of the Opposition, then they might. I see the Minister for Education is shaking his head as if it might not happen, or is it going to happen? But I do suggest to the Government that in these matters, everything should be equalised. That is one of the ways in which parliamentary democracy can survive, because if everything is weighted in favour of the Government, and there is nothing in favour of the Opposition, then that is not my idea of parliamentary democracy. 4.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have before us a motion in the name of the Leader of the House condemning the conduct of Mr Ong Eng Guan. Sir, you will remember that the Opposition have always condemned the conduct of Mr Ong Eng Guan not only now, not only here, but also when he was Mayor in the City Council and when he was the Minister for National Development. We have condemned his conduct, Sir, not in his capacity as an individual or to his personal detriment, but we have felt that, as Minister for National Development and as Mayor of the City Council, what he did was detrimental to the State of Singapore and the people. Yet, Sir, at that time the Government found fit, as the Hon. the Prime Minister has now admitted to do this. This is reported in the Press of 31st January, page 7: `Mr Ong said that when he was Mr Lee's friend everything was all right. Mr Lee interposed that Mr Ong had never been his friend but only his political colleague. As such, every wrong that Mr Ong did he concealed from the public because he had to protect the unity and solidarity of the party.' Sir, can we blame the public if they start wondering how many Mr Ong Eng Guans are now being concealed by the P.A.P. Government in order to protect the unity and solidarity of the Party? Going by the Hon. the Prime Minister's statement, the public will only know when these protected and shielded friends - I hope they are friends of the P.A.P. - turn renegade against them. Until then the electorate will be in the dark, because the P.A.P. has to protect its unity and solidarity. Sir, in view of the fact that we have been condemning his conduct ever since he came here, it looks as if it should be logical that now is our chance, as Government has moved a motion to condemn him, to support the motion. But as we are not supporting the motion and as we are going to abstain from voting on it, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, I feel it is our duty to clarify our stand. First of all, Sir, let there be no doubt whatsoever that we do not condone, sympathise or agree with the behaviour of Mr Ong Eng Guan - not only with regard to his behaviour in this House, but we have on innumerable occasions condemned his behaviour as Mayor and as Minister for National Development. It was the P.A.P. Government, Sir, which had shielded him from exposure and concealed his misconduct which was damaging to the whole of Singapore. They had not only created a smokescreen to protect the then invulnerable Mr Ong, but they had also fired a fierce barrage at any Opposition Member who dared attempt to make known to the public Mr Ong's misconduct. Thus, Mr Ong's misconduct had been concealed from the public for 18 long months. Sir, probably you, in your position as Mr Speaker, would not have gone round to the people seeking their opinion on the matter. But we, as representatives of the people, feel it is our duty to seek the opinion of our electorate before we make a decision in this House. This is what we have discovered, Sir. The electorate have been wondering whether the whole affair - Ong Eng Guan versus P.A.P. or Lee Kuan Yew - is not a political manoeuvre in the fight for power. As mentioned by the Member for Cairnhill, when the previous Government held a Commission of Inquiry to go into the misdeeds of the Mayor of Singapore, the Hon. Prime Minister. then a Member of the Opposition, accused the Government of making a political move against the P.A.P. It is now commonly speculated among the people of Singapore, Sir, that the Ong Eng Guan affair, including the inquiry, and despite the amount of truth in the accusations, may be another political manoeuvre to kill politically a dangerous Opposition. Sir, this speculation may well be incorrect. I do not say it is correct. It may well be incorrect. But leading up to the inquiry, it does seem to have encouraged the speculation. What the public was unable to reconcile themselves to is the fact that all the sins of Mr Ong Eng Guan as Mayor and later as Minister for National Development had been defended and concealed by Government until the explosion when Mr Ong turned a renegade to the Party. Before this, nothing that Mr Ong did could be wrong. After this nothing he did was right. The poor pin-up boy was ripped off the wall. Could it have been a coincidence? Perhaps, Sir, it could well have been, and the public were prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. But then during the inquiry, so much mud was dug out of Ong Eng Guan's past and slung at him by the Government which admitted that they protected Mr Ong from exposure by the previous Government. This, Sir, creates a doubt in the minds of the public. And today we ask, Sir, is this - the honesty and integrity of the P.A.P., referred to by the Minister for Culture? Sir, do you not think it is logical that people should ask these questions? Why has the Government chosen this specific - moment to expose Mr Ong Eng Guan, after having shielded him from exposure for one and a half years, after having stood up for him, supported his projects and - we can almost say - after condoning his misconduct for all these years as Mayor and as Minister? Why now? What significance has this opportune moment? Is it a political manoeuvre to kill politically a dangerous Opposition? Sir, the public is still wondering. This motion may just about seal the coffin with two corpses in it - the corpse of Mr Ong Eng Guan and his opponent, which is the P.A.P. The people are fed up with this ex-P.A.P. versus P.A.P. quarrel. For two months the public have had that rammed down their throats. They have heard nothing but what the P.A.P. has wanted them to hear about this case over the radio. I was at a friend's house one day, enjoying a cup of tea with a group of friends, and it happened that the radio was just announcing some words to this effect - I do not remember the exact words - that Mr Lee Kuan Yew denied that he threatened to resign if Mr Yong Nyuk Lin was not nominated. A few of my friends simultaneously shouted out, "Turn off the radio, for God's sake!" I can quite understand, Sir, I myself have heard that statement. I am not commenting on whether it was right or wrong. I am just saying that the same thing was heard over the radio again and again, and that when it did come on again, people just got sick and turned it off.

Why do you not turn it off now!

As for the newspapers, Sir, you only had to look at the headlines of the newspapers during that time. They told their own tale. Sir, I hope you will permit me to quote a few of them to show you why we are so disgusted with the whole affair, with this ex-P.A.P. versus P.A.P. affair, and why we are unable to support this motion that is before us today, in spite of the fact that we have been condemning the conduct of Mr Ong Eng Guan ever since we came into this House. Sir, the P.A.P. Government have, always tried to give the impression that they are trying to build a Malayan nation, with Malay as the national language. Yet, if you read the papers of 21st January, while Tunku Abdul Rahman was busy going round telling people, `Teach Malay to friends.' `Sacrifice five minutes of each day.' `The Tunku requests Malays at a rally?' The headlines for Singapore. `Ong accused: You're going slow The Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, today charged former Minister for National Development, Mr Ong Eng Guan...' and so on and so forth. I am just quoting a few, Sir, If you look through every issue, you will find more. On the 24th- The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): On a point of order.

Point of order.

Mr Speaker, I am just wondering whether what the Member for Mountbatten has been saying is relevant to the motion under discussion. She is bringing out cases on what the Straits Times did not do.

I have indicated that the debate on this motion has, in fact, gone off the rails. It went off the rails a long time ago. I am giving a little latitude, but not too much, to Members in this matter. I might remark that I was congratulating the House when they came back to the motion when the Prime Minister spoke and when the Member for Farrer Park spoke; but now I am afraid my congratulations were misplaced. Mrs Seow.

In that case, Sir, I shall not quote the paper but I shall just mention this in passing. If you look through the papers you will find that while the Prime Minister over the causeway is working towards nation building, relieving unemployment (trying to get jobs for 34,000 or 340,000 people), trying to build homes for civil servants, and giving them lands and loans from Government, our newspapers were full of "Ong accuses Lee", "Lee accuses Ong" and that sort of thing. Sir, the Prime Minister recently mocked at the Opposition when the Opposition tried to get the Government to restore the pay cuts to civil servants. He said we were thinking of little things while important matters of State were being discussed. Now we find that the Government is wasting money and thousands of dollars over the insignificant little Mr Ong Eng Guan when the Prime Minister over the causeway has so much work to do for the good of the people. Sir, I would like to say that while the P.A.P. have reasons to conceal Mr Ong's wrongs and to protect him for the sake of protecting the unity and solidarity of the Party, we have no reason to support or protect him. In fact, as I have mentioned before, we have always been condemning his conduct. Why should we be obligated to support Mr Ong Eng Guan? They think that we are going to use him as a stooge. Examples in this House prove that we will not be able to use him as a stooge. Mr Speaker, you yourself will remember that while speaking against the Government Mr Ong eventually voted for the Government. Can you rely on such support? Are we going to support him now? Therefore, let it be very clear, Sir, that we are abstaining from voting because we feel that this is really and truly the consequent of the internal strife that we have noticed has been plaguing the P.A.P. No matter what the P.A.P. say, no matter how much they say, no matter how long they talk, they cannot run away from the fact that Mr Ong Eng Guan was a P.A.P., born a P.A.P., bred a P.A.P. flesh and blood of the P.A.P., right from the beginning of his political career. When I say born, I mean politically born. He has been a P.A.P. all the time of his life, and had been protected and shielded by the P.A.P. In any smear on Mr Ong Eng Guan, the P.A.P. cannot hope to avoid a splash of it. Much as the Government would like to deny it, the public feels that the whole affair is, in reality, whatever superficial dressings have been given to it, nothing but a battle between the P.A.P. and the abandoned pin-up boy of the P.A.P. It is a P.A.P. versus an ex-P.A.P. We therefore do not wish to have any part in the settlement of this family strife within the P.A.P. 5.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall try to keep as close as possible to the terms of the motion. The second sentence in the findings of the Commission of Inquiry on the terms of reference states that Mr Ong Eng Guan's allegations were groundless and recklessly made and that there was no justification for making any of them. Sir, on the strength of those findings, the Minister for Culture stated that the issue for the Hong Lim by-election will be a choice between freedom to tell the truth and freedom to tell lies. If that were the issue then the choice is very simple. I would say that practically everybody in Singapore would choose freedom to tell the truth and the uncensored truth. Unfortunately, in his haste to smear the Opposition, Sir, the Minister for Culture very soon after that made what appeared to me to be a groundless and reckless allegation against the Opposition, thereby committing the very same mistake of which the former Member for Hong Lim was accused and for which he is being condemned. What did the Minister for Culture say, Sir? I took particular note of what he said. He said that the S.P.A. provided Mr Ong Eng Guan with a legal adviser for the Commission of Inquiry. The Straits Times, I suppose, publishing the whole draft in full, said: `The many S.P.A. and Labour Front lawyers who advised Mr Ong must have known that his allegations could not stand close scrutiny.' Sir, I checked up with my colleagues here and none of us remember having heard the Labour Front link-up. The allegation was that the S.P.A. provided a legal adviser for Mr Ong Eng Guan.

What is the date of the paper?

It is today's date. Sir, we would like to ask the Minister for Culture - I wish he were here, Sir; but as he is not here, I hope his colleagues will convey this to him - on what grounds did he make that allegation? Does he know that as far as the S.P.A. is concerned, that is a falsehood? If he does not know the truth of the allegation and he is raising it on a surmise or a suspicion or a guess, or on an assumption based on a few strands of information, then he has done what Mr Ong Eng Guan did.

Hold a Commission of Inquiry!

Sir, that being so, since on the Government side Members themselves have committed what Mr Ong Eng Guan has been accused of committing how can we be asked to condemn just one? Sir, I do not wish to be accused of speaking without truth. Sir, I would like to quote from Hansard to show that if groundless and reckless allegations have been made, then the Government side has allowed that to go on for far too long. If the Government from today onwards decide that they will not allow groundless and reckless allegations to be made from their side, then, Sir, I am sure we from this side will co-operate. But having allowed Mr Ong Eng Guan full rein when he was Minister for National Development, and then to say that they are a clean and honest Party and all others are unclean, while we know that when Mr Ong Eng Guan was there he was being protected by them, and then now he is unclean, fit to be condemned and treated like a Singapore Lumumba-

Lumumba was a hero.

We will let the electorate of Hong Lim decide. The truth of the matter is that when the hon. Member for Hong Lim was giving us a dose of his fiery medicine, the Members on the Government side were enjoying it. But when the Member for Hong Lim, because of some clash of personality or struggle inside their ranks, came over to the Opposition and gave them a full dose of the P.A.P. brand of medicine, Sir, we on this side were sorry to note that they could not stand it. [Interruption] Sir, if we have a sense of humour, we can take it.

If they have the medicine, they will backfire.

I would like to quote a few examples, Sir, from Hansard to show that I am not just making up stories. In Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 3, col. 85, dated 16th July, 1959, Mr Ong Eng Guan as Minister for National Development on the Government side was speaking. This is what he was accusing the Member for Farrer Park of: `The Member for Farrer Park was in the City Council for nearly ten years and we see the mess he left for us to clean up. Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park was also in the Singapore Improvement Trust and we are now doing the cleaning up. We have chosen the S.I.T. building as the headquarters for the Ministry of National Development, because we believe that at present it is the most filthy and the most corrupt institution in Singapore, and we are going there to clean it up as expeditiously as possible.' Sir, the former Minister for National Development is now a bad man. And yet-

Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member will perhaps give us the reference to all these cases, because I do not think that they are strictly relevant to the motion. But if he wishes a record to be made of these so-called examples and if he just gives us the quotation in the Hansard, volume so and so, number so and so, and column so and so, I am sure hon. Members, if they are interested, will read those records. The Prime Minister rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

Sir, the point I wish to make-

Order. I am just inquiring from the Prime Minister whether he is seeking elucidation on the Speaker's remarks. Is it or is it not elucidation?

It is.

If it is, then it is all right.

I wanted to know whether you intended thereby that although a Member of the Opposition has not complained that anything said about him is untruthful, yet we on the Government side should investigate the whole series of defamatory things that have been said about them which they did not complain of?

Order. All I really meant was to try and save the time of this Assembly. I have told the Member for Tanglin that if he could give us a list of all these incidents, then if any Member in interested he can read about them for himself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point I was going to make by referring to this extract was that when the hon. Member for Hong Lim was a member of the P.A.P. Government, he practically alleged here that the Member for Farrer Park was responsible for the corruption in the City Council and the S.I.T. Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park, knowing what parliamentary democracy is, allowed the thing to go on because we believe that the common sense of the common people will be able to tell them that such wholesale allegations could be just brushed aside and ignored. Sir, the next example occurred on the same day, which showed that they seemed to be fond of making such allegations-

You are going to read it?

In col. 137 of the Hansard, Sir,It is a short one. I think I will read it. Mr Teo Hock Guan - it is just stated as a name here - was speaking: `The former Government was very corrupted. How were they corrupted? I give you one example. A teacher told me that he went to the Education Department, and asked a clerk. "Why do you not work seriously?' The clerk replied, "Go and ask Mr Chew Swee Kee." This proves that because the Government was corrupted, therefore the employees were also corrupted.' Sir, such wholesale allegations that all the Government employees were corrupted were groundless and reckless.

Hold a Commission of Inquiry!

If after this debate the Government side will be more careful, Sir, we will appreciate it. Sir, the same sort of thing has occurred. I will reduce the number of examples, Sir, so that we could go quickly to some of the main ones. In Vol. 12-

Order. May I remind the hon. Member that the issue in the motion itself is quite clear? The motion invites the Assembly to condemn Mr Ong Eng Guan in the light of the Report of the Inquiry Commission. I have indicated that the debate has, in fact, gone off the rails and that it did come back when the Prime Minister spoke and when the Member for Farrer Park spoke. Now, it seems to me that the Member for Tanglin is not only going off the rails, but he is going into a ravine. I would now suggest that he tries, as far as possible, to come back to the motion.

The main point I wish to make, Sir, is this. If the Government side themselves have been making groundless and reckless allegations, can the Opposition at this point condemn one Member who has been pushed out and say all the rest are innocent?

Order. I have tried to assist the Member for Tanglin. He has made his point and I have suggested that he should list the references to these extracts so that Members could read them in their spare time. The point has been made and, lest it be said that he has no proof on this point, I have permitted him to go as far as listing these passages. That is all.

One more, Sir, a very important one, which is found in. Vol. I 2, No. 5, of the Hansard, dated 13th of February, 1960, where the Minister for Home Affairs had alleged who was responsible again for corruption and mismanagement in the City Council to the point where the Member for Farrer Park, usually tolerant, at last could not stand it any more and challenged the Government side to prove the allegation. Yet, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law, in Vol. 11, No. 7, dated 13th August, 1959, col. 402 of the Hansard, speaking about the Minister for National Development who was still with them then, referred to the very good work done by the former Mayor and his colleagues. Sir, the real truth is that-

Order. I hope I have not dissuaded the hon. Member from listing these passages. Do not let it be said that I stopped the Member from doing so.

Sir, I think there is enough evidence already to show that the Government side, excluding the former Minister for National Development, has also made groundless and reckless allegations. I want that to be recorded, Sir, If that is recorded, then the issue is not purely a question of freedom to tell the truth or freedom to tell a lie. It has become very confused. If it can be made clear to both sides of the House that from now on we would like to have less reckless allegations, then we will have achieved something from this debate. As far as we are concerned, we would like to see statements made with a sense of responsibility, and today we are glad that the Prime Minister has set a new lead which we hope will be followed thereafter.

Dr Toh, in reply. 5.29 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park has complained at length that we on the Government side have in the past failed to appreciate that the Opposition has an important role to play in this system of parliamentary democracy. However, let me assure him and other Members of the House that we have always stood by this system, and if we are to maintain this stand it is logical that we should accept that the Opposition has indeed a proper role to play in this Chamber, provided, of course, that we have Members on the Opposition side who are not only responsible but who are prepared equally to play the game. Only recently there was a conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Kuching where there was a seminar on the role of the Opposition in a parliamentary democratic system. The Opposition Member who attended this conference, if I remember correctly, was the Member for Mountbatten. It is accepted that in a parliamentary democracy we should have on one side a government majority and, on the other side, an opposition party. In fact, in the House of Commons, the role of the Leader of the Opposition has been considered so important that he is even paid a pension. But however, Mr Speaker, I am not giving hopes to the Member for Cairnhill. But after what the Member for Cairnhill said yesterday of his meeting with the Prime Minister and myself, and his meeting with Mr Ong Eng Guan, it is necessary that I should let the House understand clearly the circumstances, lest there be misconstruction of the matter. Members will recollect that on Wednesday, 14th December, 1960, the House was debating the estimates and expenditure for Head 56 (Ministry of Education). At that time, the Government had intended to move a motion to censure the Member for Hong Lim for certain allegations he had made during the debate on the Budget on 10th and 12th of December. Now, according to Standing Order No. 32 notice of the motion shall not be dispensed with except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of all Members present. Therefore, the Prime Minister and I met the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Cairnhill in the Library, to explain to them the reasons for the Motion which we were going to move and to seek the assent of the Opposition to the motion being moved without notice. According to the Standing Order, your consent, Mr Speaker, also was required. Hence we had to discuss the motion with you. I wish to make it very clearly that there was no collusion between the Government and the Opposition on the one hand, or between the Government and the Speaker on the other hand, in moving the motion to censure Mr Ong Eng Guan, then Member for Hong Lim. It was because under this Standing Order we had to seek the Speaker's consent and the assent of all Members to debate the motion without notice that meetings were held with the Leaders of the Opposition and the Speaker. I also wish to state that when we explained to the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park the reasons for moving the motion of censure against Mr Ong Eng Guan, we did mention to them that if Mr Ong Eng Guan did not withdraw his allegations and apologise, the Government had no alternative but to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate and make known the truth. Mr Ong Eng Guan then was still a Member of the Assembly and at that time no one had any inkling that there would be a by-election in the constituency of Hong Lim. The Commission of Inquiry which the Government had intended to institute could not therefore have been cooked up for any electioneering purpose, as the Member for Cairnhill alleged yesterday. The Government was only anxious that the Commission of Inquiry should be able to obtain clarification on Mr Ong Eng Guan's allegations if no such clarification could be obtained in the Assembly. In fact, a Commission was already prepared when, to all our surprise, Mr Ong Eng Guan on Friday, 23rd December, said that he wished to justify his statements in the Assembly. Because of this, the appointment of the Commission was never gazetted. It was only after he had resigned on 29th December without substantiating his allegations that the Government proceeded with the plan to institute a Commission of Inquiry. The Member for Cairnhill was aware that the Government had the intention of instituting a Commission of Inquiry even before Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned from the Assembly. Yet he chose to make an untrue statement that the Commission was put up as an electioneering stunt. Sir, the ramblings of the Member for Cairnhill are really hard to follow. He has zig-zagged from Keppel to Havelock, from Havelock to Cairnhill, and now he has asked the House to join in the guessing game as to where his next destination will be.

Tanjong Pagar!

It could be the Southern Islands or even the Straits of Malacca.

Vietnam!

Mr Speaker, if you were to ask me for a definition of a "political sputnik", I would answer that it is one which has been misfired and keeps on moving from one political orbit to another.

Keeps travelling!

The Member for Aljunied and the Member for Punggol were foolish enough yesterday to say that they rejected this Report. They said so under cover of privilege in this Assembly. Let Mr Ong Eng Guan and the two Members opposite go to Hong Lim and tell the people that they reject this Report. The simplest way of doing it is to re-state exactly what Mr Ong Eng Guan and they have said in this Assembly. Mr Ong Eng Guan has in this Chamber and in the Commission of Inquiry made some very interesting statements. The Commission has found those statements to be untruths. He has found Mr Ong to be a person who is not to be believed and who would tell an untruth whenever it suited him. If Mr Ong wants to challenge these findings, there is one simple way of doing it, namely, in Hong Lim at a mass meeting to say that he rejects these findings, that what he has said both in this Assembly and in the Commission of Inquiry are true. If he does not do so, then the people can draw their own conclusions. But let us come to the main issue underlying this motion. It is whether we wish to maintain the system and principles of parliamentary democracy or not. If it is our desire to uphold the system of parliamentary democracy, then we in this Chamber, as elected representatives of the people, must equally be prepared to uphold the dignity, honour and prestige of the Assembly. But can there be dignity if a Member is permitted under cover of privilege to hurl slanders at other Members? Can there be honour if a Member, under the guise of freedom of speech, is permitted to make innuendoes against other Members? Can there be prestige if a Member is permitted to reduce this House to a wrestling ring where mud can be freely slung about? Whether a Member in the Assembly has committed a breach of privilege can only be decided by the Assembly itself. You, Mr Speaker, suggested last Wednesday that a Committee of Privileges should be set up consonant with the new powers of the Assembly under the new constitution; and I shall at the next sitting of the Assembly on 22nd March ask the House to approve the setting up of this Committee. With reference to what the Member for Farrer Park has said about the powers, privileges and immunities of Assemblymen, the Minister for Labour and Law has informed me that the State Advocate-General is already at work revising the present Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, as well as the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance. When these Ordinances have been revised, we hope any defects in the existing laws and any doubts on interpretation will be removed. However, until the Committee of Privileges is set up, we have now to depend upon the findings of the Inquiry Commission. The conclusion of the Commission are clear-cut, that there is no truth in the allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan, that these allegations are groundless and recklessly made, and that there is no justification for making any of them. Do the Opposition accept or do they not accept the findings of the Commission? If we accept the findings of the Commission, then we can arrive at only one conclusion, and that conclusion is that Mr Ong Eng Guan has flagrantly abused the privilege of the Assembly. Since this is so, then correctly we, as the responsible representatives of the people, must censure and condemn Mr Ong Eng Guan for his dishonourable conduct in this Assembly. Question put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 2; Abstentions, 4; Absent, 13. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Omar Lingam, S. V. Junid. Ng Teng Kian. Byrne, K. M. Chan Choy Siong, Miss. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Abstentions. Madam. Lee Khoon Choy. Lim Yew Hock. Lee Kuan Yew. Rajah, A. P. Lee Siew Choh. Seow Peck Leng, Lee Teck Him. Mrs. Leong Keng Seng. Thio Chan Bee. Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Absent. Mohd. Ariff bin Abdul Hamid bin Suradi. Haji Jumat. M. Ismail Rahim. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ong Chang Sam. Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Pang Boon. Mohammad Akib. Rajaratnam, S. Baharuddin bin Sahorah binte Ahmat, Mohd. Ariff. Madam. Bani, S. T. Sheng Nam Chin. Chan Chee Seng. Tan Cheng Tong. Chan Sun Wing. Tan Kia Gan. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Koh, C. H. Toh Chin Chye. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Wong Soon Fong. Ramaswamy, S. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Teo Hock Guan. Yong Nyuk Lin. Wee Toon Boon. Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Wednesday, 22nd March, 1961."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye}. Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 22nd March, 1961.