Hansard, 1961-07-20

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Mr K. M. Byrne (Crawford), Minister for Labour and Law - from 17th June to 17th July, 1961. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 27th June to 3rd July, 1961. Madam Sahorah Binte Ahmat (Siglap) - from 29th June to 31st July, 1961.

31 p.m. Mr David Marshall (Member for Anson) made an Affirmation of Allegiance.

Merdeka!

Order. Will the Member for Anson retire below the Bar?

If it pleases you, Mr Speaker. The Member for Anson retired below the Bar.

The Member for Anson must realise that when he comes into this Chamber he must obey the rules and orders of the Assembly. One of the rules I have laid down is that there should not be any attempt to shout any slogan in this Chamber. The Member for Anson may now come forward and take his seat. Mr David Marshall took his seat in the Chamber.

2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move this motion of confidence in the Government, That this House expresses its confidence in the Government. The events of the past week have been so rapid and dramatic that it would take some time for everybody to grasp their full significance. On Monday, the 10th of July-ten days ago - at a forum at the University of Malaya especially organised for the occasion to discuss the basis of merger, an open collision took place between Mr Devan Nair, who represented the P.A.P., and Mr Woodhull, who represented Mr Lim Ching Siong and four others in the T.U.C. Mr Woodhull, Mr Devan Nair, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, the Deputy Prime Minister, myself and several other members of the Central Executive Committee of my Party were old comrades in the P.A.P. Now an open break has taken place when Mr Woodhull, a Political Secretary in the present Government, in the last week of the Anson by-election, openly attacked Mr Devan Nair, a former member of the P.A.P. and a P.A.P. stalwart. On Friday, the 14th of July - six days ago-eight Assemblymen of the P.A.P. came out supporting the Trade Union Six; and, in open breach of Party discipline and the rules of decency, created public confusion by demanding the P.A.P.'s disavowal of Mr Devan Nair. What was this all about? Their object in doing this was to make us lose the Anson by-election and the more heavily our candidate was defeated, the more it suited their plot. They have succeeded in making our candidate lose. 1,500 people abstained from voting in Anson, disillusioned by this Party dissension brought out into the open deliberately on the eve of Polling Day, and we lost to the present Member for Anson by 546 votes. What is it all about? The time has come to begin to explain frankly what is happening and why it is happening. After Hong Lim, when we were defeated badly, I felt that if the people desired it, there should be a reference back to the people. However, it was decided by a majority opinion of the Party that we should first fight Anson and then reconsider the position. At that time, Mr Lim Ching Siong and all his trade union friends strenuously opposed any talk of our resignation. Now, however, after losing Anson by a narrow majority, and because of this attempt by the Trade Union Six and eight Assemblymen - one of whom is a member of the Trade Union Six - to capture the Government and the Party, we are resolved not to abdicate our position in order that the Party and the Government does not pass into the hands of people who intend to use it for purposes for which the people did not vote the P.A.P. in. The present leadership of the Party was responsible for winning the last elections and getting the mandate of the people, and it is our duty not to give Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends any opportunity to take over this Government in order to run it as a Communist front Government. What is it all about? Their first plan now, since they are unable to capture the Government, is to get me to resign in order that someone whom they believe they can manipulate could be elected Prime Minister. They hope in this way to force a compromise in the policy of the Government so that they can extend Communist influence in Singapore and prevent us from fulfilling our declared objective of independence through merger with the Federation with or without the Borneo territories in 1963. This move has now been frustrated by the unanimous decision of the Central Executive Committee to stand collectively together against any change. And this stand has been endorsed by a majority of P.A.P. Assemblymen. This motion is one of confidence and the motion will have to be carried as it stands without amendment, or the Government must resign and general elections follow. On a motion of confidence, any amendment is tantamount to a vote of no confidence. As for the hon. Members on the other side of the House, may I say, on behalf of my colleagues and I, that if they want general elections then they can vote against the Government. This extraordinary session has become necessary because of the sudden turn of events of the last few weeks. Eight Assemblymen on the P.A.P. side have openly defied the Party leadership. Demands for my resignation as Prime Minister have been made and it is now necessary that the House should clearly give us a mandate to carry on. You will recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when we last met on 14th June, 1961, the House was adjourned sine die, the reason being that we expected to prorogue the session and re-convene again at the end of October after you have returned from a C.P.A. conference in London. I understand you will be leaving Singapore in September and returning in mid-October. Therefore, before this House goes into recess, we must make it clear to the people that we have the mandate of the Assembly to carry on as the Government. By this stand we know that we shall face a fresh offensive which will be mounted maybe on labour and industrial sections and on many other fronts. Therefore, it was necessary that I should have a clear mandate from the Central Executive Committee and the P.A.P. Assemblymen who have to go into battle with us. This mandate I have been given by the Party, and I now formally ask it of the Assembly. It is my duty to tell the House of the trials and tribulations which lie ahead and of the many unpleasant things which may have to be done in order to maintain the economy of this island and the people's welfare. The time has come also for the unvarnished truth to be told. For two years, the British Government has tried to manipulate the P.A.P. into a position where we will become the successor to what was called the Lim Yew Hock Government, where the Communist Party will be attacked not by British imperialism, which is the supreme power in Singapore, but by us, the locally elected Government with limited powers. To achieve this end, every blandishment and argument has been put forward, and every device and seductive manoeuvre practised. After two years, the British have decided that the P.A.P. is impervious probably to such blandishment and perhaps they have decided that we may be men who are not influenced by personal considerations of wishing to stay in power. We have stated that we are prepared to lay down our office at any time at the behest of the people and we are not going to be manipulated by any power. The big scheme we have only been able to piece together after the Anson by-election. The plot, counter-plot and sub-plots that have been going on would make an Oppenheim thriller read like a simple comic strip cartoon. The diplomacy, skill and cunning of some 300 years of the building and running of the British Empire, and in the manipulation of men and their motivations have in great part led to this curious position, daily going curiouser and curiouser. The British, as I see it, had two objectives. The first objective was to engineer a collision between the non-Communist Left in the P.A.P. and the Communist Left leadership in the unions. Their second objective is to ensure that the Borneo territories are put into a position where they will come together immediately in a federation under British tutelage, but in a state of readiness if the international situation turns delicate to be transferred to a nationalist government of "Greater Malaysia". I congratulate the planners of this scheme for having succeeded thus far. Day by day, on the basis of British blandishments, manoeuvres, hints and gestures, all parties - the Communists, the P.A.P., the Federation and the leaders of the Borneo territories - have all been putting in stakes on the poker table, and they are mounting. To the pro-Communists in Singapore, the British say, have said, and are saying, that they are liberal and democratic, and that if they have released men from prison to be Prime Ministers, and only recently have done so again in Nyasaland, then why should they want to keep detainees in gaol? It is darkly hinted that it is the wicked Singapore Government that wanted to keep them in gaol. These insinuations started slowly. After the Hong Lim by-election, they were intensified. The British were unhappy that in Hong Lim the Communist Left rallied to the P.A.P. united front. I emphasise the P.A.P. united front, and not the Communist united front. So some plan had to be devised to ensure that the P.A.P. would come into collision with the Communist Left. Dinner parties, cocktails and luncheons led to friendly fraternisation between the British Lion and Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, Woodhull and Company. The pro-Communists were led to believe that the P.A.P. were wicked obstructionists, and that the British, wise and statesmanlike people were prepared even to envisage a new "Left" government emerging in Singapore even more Left than the P.A.P., provided their military bases were not touched. What has happened is that the British have become their own agents-provocateur. And how well they have succeeded! Quietly and insidiously they have instigated the pro-Communists to attempt the capture of both the P.A.P. Government and the Party. Young and inexperienced revolutionaries were so taken in that, in a crisis, Lim Ching Siong, Woodhull and Fong Swee Suan looked up the U.K. Commissioner for consultations last Tuesday, the 18th, at Eden Hall, the home of the British imperialists' representative. Sir, we felt that something curious was going on and we therefore kept the residence of the U.K. Commissioner under observation. Lo and behold! The great anti-colonialists and revolutionaries turned up for secret consultations with the British Lion. I am now convinced, Sir, that some funny things are happening when in a serious crisis this revolutionary trio, instead of getting in touch with the P.A.P., got into consultation with the U.K. Commissioner at Eden Hall. I therefore suggest that, having led the pro-Communists into believing that a non-Communist Government was no longer necessary and that a pro-Communist Government was possible, obviously these men were going to try and capture the P.A.P. and the Government. And the British may also have hoped that under attack and threat of capture, the P.A.P. would fight back and finally suppress the Communists, something they have so far failed in persuading the P.A.P. to do. Meanwhile, to the P.A.P., the British had suggested that we should take firm action against the mounting subversion. In fact, a plan was to have been drawn up which would have culminated in an act leading to open collision with the Communists in which the P.A.P. either remained in office, and so became committed forever to defend British colonialism, or resigned, in which case a non-Communist Government not amenable to British pressure would have been got rid off. Meanwhile, the Federation began to believe that they could get the Borneo territories, together with Singapore, merged into a larger federation. The Tunku came down to Singapore on 27th May, a week before National Day, and announced to a group of foreign correspondents that he recognised that there must be closer political and economic ties between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the three Borneo territories. I responded on the 3rd of June, National Day, that on principle we welcomed the Tunku's plan for a larger federation, if thereby merger between Singapore and the Federation was made easier. The Communists, on the other hand, immediately propounded that there was no need for independence through merger, and that the next step should be to abolish the Internal Security Council in order that there would be expansion at all levels of human activity on behalf of the Communist cause. Six trade unionists came out with statements openly supporting the Communist line on the 2nd of June. 42 trade unions also supported this C.P. line and literally put their rubber stamps on the statement to this effect without convening any meetings or consulting the rank and file. On the 9th of June, the P.A.P. Chairman, the Leader of the House, announced that the Government would demand complete independence through merger with the Federation, or merger with a larger federation when Constitutional talks reopen in 1963. The P.A.P. which was not amenable to manipulation by the British, is not going to be manipulated by the Communists. We took our stand and the battle then began. Three days after the 9th of June, the Trade Union Six demanded immediate release of the detainees, implementation of the reunification of trade unions, granting of citizenship rights to all those loyal to the anti-colonial struggle, Communists or non-Communists, and more freedom of speech, Press, assembly and organisation for the advancement of the anti-colonial struggle. Meanwhile, two Governors and one High Commissioner flew in from Borneo to add impetus and mystery to the fast developing plot. All these events incidentally lent credence to the false rumours that the P.A.P. had sold out Singapore to an imperialist plot. The U.K. Commissioner left for London; the Tunku and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Federation went to Brunei. Everyone started his own analysis and adopted his own counter measures. The Member for Anson said this was all for the purpose of the Anson by-election. But the Communist Left believed differently and decided that this was an evil conspiracy to which the P.A.P. was a party. They mounted the offensive and intensified their campaign. The Trade Union Six openly attacked the P.A.P.; three Political Secretaries in receipt of Government remuneration flagrantly flouted all the rules of decency and attacked the Government they had promised to serve. 43 trade unions came out against merger supporting the Trade Union Six to make the P.A.P. lose in Anson. Finally, when in spite of everything the P.A.P. looked like winning, they engineered the betrayal of the Party by eight Assemblymen issuing a statement of discord on the eve of polls. These people had been duped into believing that the P.A.P. had sold out the rights of the people of Singapore. Sir, it will take some time for me to tell you the story right from the beginning, and the story may have to be continued to be told, over a period of time. But I feel the people must know the truth in order that when the mandate is returned to them they can make their choice in full knowledge of the facts. And the choice will be - do you want your future to be a Singapore merged with the Federation of Malaya, or do you want to follow people who ask first for the abolition of the Internal Security Council, as a first step to an independent Communist Singapore? We saw these problems looming over the horizon even whilst the Hong Lim by-election was on, and I stressed over and over again why the P.A.P. does not stand for an independent Singapore and why our future must lie with the Federation. Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends took fright and alarm when rapid developments began regarding merger. They were alarmed because merger is no longer a mirage over the horizon but a reality which will take place in 1963. Two Governors and one High Commissioner arrived from Borneo to discuss matters with Lord Selkirk. Lord Selkirk returned to London to discuss matters with his Government in London. The Tunku and the Agong went to Brunei, and the Tunku went on to Sarawak. The Tunku made a broadcast on the 4th of July announcing that he would take Brunei in as a State of the Federation, together with North Borneo and Sarawak. On the 11th of July at a Rotary dinner, the Tunku said he would hold talks with Singapore as to how Singapore should come in. Why do they oppose this merger? Why do they want to capture the Government and the Party to prevent this when for years they have always endorsed and supported the P.A.P. plan of independence through merger? Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong came out from prison because we had won the elections and had demanded their release as a condition precedent before we assumed office. Although we knew that politically our opinions differed on important points of ideology from some of them, we were openly comrades in a united front and we did not betray them. But they, on the other hand, in the middle of a by-election which was crucial to the Government, and for the purpose of giving the P.A.P. a mandate for merger, for their own reasons, betrayed us openly at Anson, caused dissension in the Party ranks and confusion in the minds of the people. Meanwhile, the battle lines have already been drawn and forces drawn up on each side. A strange twist of events has taken place in Borneo. The people of Sarawak, it appears, do not want merger as a State with the Federation as the Tunku suggested. Neither, it appears, do the people of North Borneo in which no single political party yet exists. The British Governors talked of support for "Greater Malaysia" but only as a long-term plan. The Tunku was angered at this turn of events, and now openly attacked British colonialism which has put a stumbling block in the plan for merger of a larger federation. And ten Malayan officers were being intimidated and chased out of Brunei because it is believed and said that British police officers were dilatory in protecting the physical safety of the Malayan officers. Meanwhile, because "Greater Malaysia" had been presented to the people of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo as a Federation colonising effort, the three territories have for the first time in history come together voluntarily on the British plan of a Borneo federation. I congratulate the men who charted this course of events if, in fact, all these were intended. The British are now getting the three Borneo territories together for the first time into a federation, after they have failed so far in the past. Of course, the British supported the Tunku's plan for "Greater Malaysia" on principle, but they had always said that the Borneo territories must form a federation first before they merge with Malaya. As far as the Borneo territories are concerned, therefore, the British have got everyone well and happy, except probably the ten anxious Malayan officers in Brunei. Meanwhile in Singapore they have succeeded in beguiling the pro-C.P. elements into believing that the P.A.P. had sold them out and encouraging them to openly attack and betray the P.A.P. in Anson by suggesting that there could be a government even more Left than the P.A.P. The British were happy, for they thought that after this collision the P.A.P. would have to take strong measures to ensure its survival. Sir, day by day the chips on the poker table are mounting. The game as has been played has gone so far now that no side can afford to back out, and some time in the near future all cards will be called and seen. Whoever is bluffing will lose bitterly. I now say on behalf of my colleagues and my Party that we are not going to fit in with the scheme to beat up the C.P. for the benefit of British colonialism. If we get no independence through merger, we will leave the British with the predicament of having to deal with the Communists themselves, even in an elected government. The Communists, on the other hand, have mounted their offensive in order to capture the P.A.P. Party and the P.A.P. Government. Needless to say, we shall resist them to prevent this from ever happening. We advise them not to try it and not to provoke us into unnecessary collision. If they want to win and take over power in Singapore, they may try to do so in the next general elections. We, on the other hand, must let the people know the truth - plain, simple, unvarnished - so that all will realise the hazardous course they will travel with these men. Our battle with the Communists must be won by argument and in the hearts and minds of the people. We will prove that the democratic socialist forces in Singapore are honest and sincere to the people, and have not sold out and will not sell out their rights to anybody. It will also be shown that the Communists have not only been duped by the British but duped to the extent that they betrayed their P.A.P. comrades in the nationalist Left united front. I say the battle for men's minds cannot be won by simple smearing of a man being either anti-Communist, reactionary, wavering bourgeoisie, Social Democrat or Communist. As I said, the battle for men's minds cannot be won by simple labelling. Not all those who oppose the British are nationalists. Some anti-colonialists are nationalists and some are Communists. We also see this distinction that not all who oppose the P.A.P. are Communists; some are Communists, some reactionaries, some opportunists and some merely confused. Therefore, in this battle for ideas, it is necessary that we should call a spade a spade and put across truthfully the respective position of everyone. Our purpose is to build a movement for a united, independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. Our business is to strengthen the forces that help to create this united Malaya. In the past the Communists may have for their own reasons assisted us in this task. If so, they did it in the full knowledge that we are non-Communist, and not Communist. We are firmly convinced that the survival of the P.A.P. depends on a strong adherence to this line of non-Communism to prevent perversion of our Party, either by the British getting the P.A.P. into openly repressing the Communists, or by the Communists in making the P.A.P. the vehicle of their Communist line. As the game has been played so far, beyond any doubt the really able and skilful player has been the British. Even we, Mr Speaker, Sir, were at first puzzled by this strange development of events. On the one hand, we were asked to be tough and to take firm action. On the other hand, the British lion was asking the revolutionary Messrs. Lim and Woodhull & Co, to dinner and telling them that all the detainees can be let out, or suggesting to them that that could be so. And then their fellow-travelling friends come and tell us that they, the revolutionaries, have a first-class pipe-line with the U.K. Commission and are convinced that all that the British wanted in Singapore were their bases and quiet, peace and tranquillity, and even if a Communist government can be popularly elected, all would be well. For all sides the events of the last two months have been irrevocable ones. Such conflicts as have appeared between the pro-C.P. elements and the P.A.P. cannot just be laughed off and forgotten. The British are still hoping that we will come into open collision and that we will use draconian methods of suppression to establish our position. But as I have explained, Sir, we are completely unmoved by considerations of staying in office, pomp or power, for these were not the considerations that made us seek office in 1959. We can, therefore, afford to ignore these blandishments and present to the British the dragon's teeth that they have been sowing. But we shall fight to prevent the Government and the Party from capture. In many ways the events of the last two months bear resemblance to the crisis in the P.A.P. in 1957. There again the pro-Communist Left, whom we had called Left-Wing adventurers, miscalculated their position and tried to capture the P.A.P. and force us to follow their line. Very prudently we calculated differently and abstained from office, thereby saving the P.A.P. and ourselves a great deal of unnecessary trouble. As a result, we were able to survive, grow to greater strength and later succeed in the last General Elections and were able thereby to rescue Mr Lim, Mr Woodhull and six others from prison, before we assumed power. Now again in 1961, as in 1957, it is believed that the P.A.P. can be captured by Communists and used for Communist policies with impunity. Some of the lesser souls in our Party have decided to take the easy way out - this shortcut to peace in our time and popularity in our time. Little do they realise that this short-cut can only lead to peace only for a time and popularity only for a time. We have decided to stay and not abdicate to prevent this criminal folly from being perpetrated on the P.A.P. for the second time. I only hope these gamblers will not have to pay too high and bitter a price when the cards are opened. We ask these gentlemen of the Communist Left to stop and ponder on the adventure they are about to embark on. We the P.A.P. have never betrayed them. Although we never agreed with their ideological position, yet because we were in one anti-colonial front and they landed in gaol, the non-Communists in the P.A.P. carried on, won the General Elections in 1959, and secured their release. We were able to do this only because we were wise enough not to fall into a trap in 1957 when some Left-wing adventurers tried to capture the Party. On the other hand, the pro-Communists have been duped by the British. Having wined and dined with the lion, they are convinced that the lion will not eat them. It is our intention that as long as the constitutional position remains as it is, and no riots and no violence take place requiring the intervention of British troops and British generals, the P.A.P. will allow them full opportunities for free and open debate, leading if necessary to a victory for them in the next election. It is for them to decide what course they are to embark upon. On the question of the detainees arrested by the previous Government and still in detention, my colleague, the Leader of the House, will be making a statement. We intend to get this irrelevant issue out of the political scene by implementing the memorandum which we submitted to the Internal Security Council in August 1959, for the continued releases in batches of all the detainees, arrested in two purges in 1956 and 1957 in which the P.A.P. was involved. As a result of the turn of events, we are convinced that it is in the interest of the country to get this issue out of the way, so that the real issue, merger, is not clouded over. On merger, let me repeat what the Party Chairman has said - that we stand for merger in 1963, independence through merger either direct with the Federation alone or together with the three Borneo States on the terms that there should be local autonomy on education and labour. There have been no details agreed upon; there have been no secret deals. I hope at a convenient time to discuss these matters with the Tunku on the basis for merger. When the terms and conditions are formulated, it is our intention not only to get this House to support it, but to get the whole country to endorse it. The moment of reckoning is fast approaching, partly by British design, partly by miscalculation and the gullibility of people who are supposed to be politically intelligent revolutionaries. The cards have been dealt out and gone out to them, and the game must come to its conclusion. Let me explain how we are going to play this game on our side. First, we intend to win the game not merely for the immediate present but for the long-term future. We are concerned not so much with immediately remaining in office, but in preparing the conditions for merger and presenting the issues to the people so that ultimately they can make the right choice on their future in full possession of all the facts. I stated in October 1959, in this House that as long as British power is supreme in Singapore, in any conflict between the armed Communists and the armed colonialists we must opt out. We have only limited arms - a Police Force, a small S.I.R. unit and a couple of riot squads. Violence and unrest which the Communists can mount on a scale that will require the intervention of British troops and the taking over of command by a British general must mean that we abdicate, or otherwise be labelled stooges of a colonial regime. It is therefore a matter for the Communist-Left to decide whether they want to get us out by bringing about this situation. But since their adversary, the British Lion, has led them to believe that they will be left secure and that they will be given the freedom of the island, obviously some irrevocable decisions must already have been made by them on the strength of this belief. Obviously also, nearly three years of meditation in prison have not brought about that maturity of revolutionary judgment which is, I think, required of those who embark on perilous schemes for the acquisition even of limited power. It is strange that both the British colonialists and the Communists should have come to a common conclusion, that the P.A.P. no longer serves any political purpose. What they mean is that the P.A.P. is no longer of any value from their respective points of view for purposes of manipulation, either by the British or by the Communists. Hence the British talked of liberal rights to Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, Woodhull & Co.; of the British being in favour of releasing people and encouraging the Communist Left to make more and more demands on the P.A.P. leading to a bid to take over the Government and the Party, knowing that in that event the P.A.P. would have to fight the Communists for its survival. I would like to repeat once more clearly that the only way to independence is through merger. We do not intend to take repressive actions against the Communists just for the benefit of the colonialists. It is our business to try, under conditions of absolute safety for the life and limb of every political contestant to win the argument for the political future of Singapore in the hearts and minds of the people. For the P.A.P. we are concerned with two things - the interest of the people of Singapore and of the Federation whom we consider to be one, and next the interest of the P.A.P. as a means of bringing about a democratic socialist society. The British, having been unable to manipulate the P.A.P., naturally are prepared to see it destroyed and have decided with diabolical cynicism to use the Communist Party as their tool. Their objective now is to put the P.A.P. in a spot where it either has to suppress the C.P., or be devoured and captured by it peacefully by the technique of smear and silent intimidation. However, I believe the Party and its stalwarts are sufficiently stout at heart and mind, and fortunately have foreseen such eventualities. We have our own safeguards and defences. The question of suppression of all Communists we leave to the wisdom of the Communists as a matter between them and the British. Since they apparently have become good friends I wish them well in their new fraternisation. However, I fear that in due course of time both parties will end up in mutual humiliation and betrayal. From the very moment the Communists decided that super-merger was a plot of the British imperialist in conjunction with what they called the "feudalists" in the Federation aided and abetted by what they called the "wavering bourgeois" in the P.A.P. in Singapore, they decided to destroy support for it. Their fear is that this was a trap to keep them permanently in a state of constant suppression. And they have been led to believe, not least I suggest by the British, that a colonial Singapore without the I.S.C. is preferable to an independent greater Malaya or Greater Malaysia. With British blandishments they believe that under colonialism and without the I.S.C. they will have more freedom of action than under an independent united Malayan government. Sir, it is not for me to fathom the tortuous depths of their minds. But I say that those who believe in the proposition that more freedom is available for the advancement of the Communist cause by having a colonial self-governing Singapore than by having Singapore as part of Greater Malaysia or of the Federation are men whose political maturity is very much to be doubted, and whose claim to be revolutionary heroes will be disproved and discarded by the harsh test of time. Good revolutionaries are not men who fall into traps set by their enemies and get excited when they see British Governors arriving in Singapore to discuss super-merger, and the United Kingdom Commissioner leaving Singapore for London to discuss matters with the Imperial Government. Perhaps the democratic socialists with less dogma and theoretical blinkers were better able to see through this maze of events and were less agitated and jumpy. Young socialists in the University of Malaya thought super-merger a trap. I think in the next few months it is likely to be proved that they, in fact, had fallen into a trap, a British trap to get them to oppose both super-merger and merger. From this trap they will find great difficulty in extricating themselves. There is so much to tell on so many things that I think it is better that we take things step by step. The drama of the last few weeks which has led to this new phase in the political life of Singapore will move with increasing rapidity to a crescendo. As it unfolds itself, the people of Singapore and of the Federation will see the under-current forces for themselves and they will have to decide what they wish to make of their country, their homes and their lives. Our duty is to preserve the P.A.P. in the midst of zig-zagging policies and opportunist manoeuvring by the Right as well as from the Communist Left. It is the beacon which lights up the road to an independent democratic non-Communist Malaya in which the races will live in peace and harmony with each other and build out of our multi-racial and multi-linguistic peoples one Malayan people, one common destiny for us all in this part of the world. Perhaps at some future date the Borneo territories may find themselves drawn towards us by the very logistics of the political situation in South-East Asia. These events may take place faster than have been envisaged a year ago. It is our duty as a political party to hasten tendencies which are to the benefit of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. Question proposed. 3.26 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has very aptly outlined to the House the course of political developments in Singapore. I have little more to add to what he has said excepting to bring out and to reiterate the stand of the P.A.P. Government over the detention of those who were arrested by the previous Government in two purges, in October 1956 and August 1957. I would like to restate our position so that it will be clear in the minds of the people, in the minds of even the detainees, that the P.A.P. was sincere in working for their release in the Internal Security Council. On 22nd May, 1959, during the election campaign, I stated that the P.A.P. would not take office unless former members of the Party who were intimately connected with the Central Executive Committee and who are now in gaol are released. This pledge we have fulfilled. Eight P.A.P. members, all those intimately connected with the leadership of the Party, were released at our insistence on 4th June before we assumed office on 5th June. These eight persons were released before the Internal Security Council was set up. Subsequently, orders for the release of the other detainees were made in batches, but after two batches were released, the Internal Security Council challenged the policy of indiscriminate release. As a result, a memorandum recommending the release of these detainees was submitted by the Singapore Government to the Internal Security Council dated 12th August, 1959, two months after the P.A.P. had assumed power. Let me quote the relevant extract from this paper defining the Singapore Government's policy with regard to the present detainees. `As early as October 1956, the P.A.P. saw clearly that it would be necessary, if and when it won the elections, to release those detainees who were closely associated with the Party. This is a question highly charged with emotion. Whether these men were Communists or not is irrelevant when it comes to justifying the position of the P.A.P. Government in the eyes of the people, and the smear to which the P.A.P. Government would be opened, if these men remained in jail and the P.A.P. in power, is one which cannot be lightly dismissed.'

Order. Am I right in assuming that the Deputy Prime Minister is quoting from a document?

Yes.

If he is quoting from a document, then it is right that that document itself should be laid on the Table. If the Deputy Prime Minister undertakes to do that, it can be done later.

Mr Speaker, it is my intention to lay this document on the Table at the end of my speech, and I am quoting extracts from this document. If you so wish, I could lay the document on the Table now, but I would rather do it at the end of my speech. Let me continue: `For the charge would be, not that these men were Communists, but that these men were known P.A.P. supporters who have been betrayed and abandoned by the Party... From the P.A.P. Government point of view, it stands more to gain than lose by the gradual release of the 40 odd detainees a few at a time over the course of the next two to three months, and the five leaders who are on its side would have discharged their moral obligations to their colleagues and comrades under detention... However, there should be exceptional cases where no release will be made in view of the grave security risk of the individual concerned. Other than such cases, in the eyes of the neutral public the P.A.P. Government would have discharged itself honourably from all moral obligations by releasing those detained in the two purges in October. 1956 and August, 1957. These were the two purges in which the P.A.P. was involved. In the other cases where suspects were picked up and unconnected with the P.A.P., the present Government has no obligation to them whatsoever, and the public (other than Communist sympathisers) does not expect the Government to do anything about them.' There were altogether 61 persons detained on 2nd June, 1959. From the day the P.A.P. assumed office on 3rd June, 1959, to date, 35 persons have been released. Of those who were detained by the previous Government in the two purges of 1956 and 1957, there are now only 18 persons still under detention. It is vital that the continued detention of these 18 detainees should not be allowed to obscure the main issue in the minds of the people, and that is the political future of Singapore - whether we are to attain independence through merger with the Federation in 1963 either with or without the Borneo territories, or whether, as has been suggested by Mr Lim Ching Siong's group, the next step should not be merger but an internally self-governing Singapore without the Internal Security Council. I would like to lay on the Table the Singapore Government's Paper to the Internal Security Council dated 12th August, 1959, for the information of the House. I would like to make it known that the Singapore Government has written to the U.K. Commissioner about our intention to release this memorandum by the Singapore Government to the Internal Security Council and has asked the U.K. Commissioner to inform the Federation Government. I understand that the U.K. Commissioner has registered a protest against publication of this paper. However, in the light of recent developments which have been outlined by the Prime Minister to the House, to remove all doubts and any vestige of suspicion about the sincerity of the P.A.P. Government in wanting to release these detainees, we have no alternative hut feel compelled that the whole truth should be made known to the people. The importance of the question of merger so outweighs all other considerations that we are anxious that this side issue of continued detention of the detainees should be immediately resolved and not be allowed to be used as an argument against merger. Notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council, the Singapore Government will issue orders for the release of the detainees in batches from time to time in accordance with the original proposal of the Singapore Government to the Internal Security Council. In doing so, I would like to clarify that it is not the desire of the Singapore Government to precipitate any conflict or crisis with the Federation Government with whom it has always been our policy to maintain amicable and brotherly relationship in the interest of the people of both territories. Copies of memorandum dated 12th August, 1959, recommending release of detainees submitted by Singapore Government to Internal Security Council handed in.

I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister has no objection to these copies being distributed now?

I have no objection. Copies distributed to hon. Members.

I notice that the Paper itself is marked "Secret. This Paper is the property of the Internal Security Council". I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister has satisfied himself on legal advice that the release of this Paper is not unconstitutional?

Sir, the original of the document was a Paper submitted by the Singapore Government itself. It is not a document submitted by another party to the Internal Security Council, which it would be improper for the Singapore Government to release. This is a document stating the Singapore Government's position and we could, if we had so wished, make it public at that time. 3.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with a deep sense of regret and a great deal of sadness that I rise to speak on the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister - regret that the Prime Minister should have chosen to move a motion of confidence in the Government at such short notice and without prior consultation with the Government Assemblymen and the Party rank and file; and sad that the political movement led by the People's Action Party is in such a critical state that the collective leadership deems it necessary to force the issue in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a parliamentary democracy in which the Government has a majority of 39 seats against 12 in the Opposition, a vote of confidence in the Government by the Prime Minister must mean only one of two things. Either the Government is seeking unanimous support from both sides of the House on an issue of national importance and above party politics, or there is dissension within the ranks of the Government majority. As we have as yet no occasion to debate any issue that is considered of national importance and above party politics in this Assembly, the second possibility must be viewed with seriousness. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore crave your indulgence to hear me speak on matters which you might consider highly politic. With 39 Assemblymen on the Government Benches in a House of 51 seats - I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir, 52 seats - I consider it inappropriate that a motion of confidence should have been brought into this House. If it is merely to find out how Government Members will vote, surely the Whip will be the person in the best position to advise the Prime Minister, and the motion therefore becomes meaningless. I cannot and will not believe that the Prime Minister is seeking support from the Opposition Benches. In the circumstances, the intention and the implication of the motion becomes quite clear, particularly with the publication of the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister on the subject of the Prime Ministership of the Government in yesterday's newspapers. The Prime Minister concluded his letter by saying - I quote the Straits Times of yesterday: `I am quite prepared to assume leadership of the government on behalf of the party provided it is the clear wish of the party executive and of the Assemblymen who will have to follow us into battle.' The Deputy Prime Minister's reply was endorsed only by the remaining 13 members of the Central Executive Committee. This motion makes it inescapable for Government Members to endorse the Deputy Prime Minister's reply in the open. Mr Speaker, Sir, some of us on this side of the House take exception to such methods and also to certain statements and implications contained in the Prime Minister's letter. Many of us on this side of the House are here not for selfish objectives or for ulterior motives. We are not a loose and feudalistic conglomeration of people seeking selfish and opportunistic ends. We are here because we believe in a political system which seeks to eliminate the exploitation of man by man and the building of a more egalitarian society. We all came into this House bearing our sacrifices and with only one single motive - to serve and to help our fellowmen. A number of us feel that it is impossible for us to unconditionally associate ourselves with some of the sentiments expressed in the Prime Minister's letter to the Deputy Prime Minister of the 17th of July. We feel, therefore, that it is equally impossible for us to give our unconditional support to the Prime Minister if he is to pursue a policy with which we cannot fully agree. Sir, I have no hesitation in stating my belief that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues are the most able persons in this Assembly - nay, in the whole of Singapore - to lead us towards our political objectives. I would have been equally unhesitating in giving them my full confidence had political events not taken a sudden turn in the last few months. The motion before the House itself is distasteful to me and to many of my comrades, because we consider it to be nothing but party politics and should not concern the Legislative Assembly. Party politics and differences of opinion between Party Assemblymen and Party members should be and must be thrashed out at party level. Where there is dissension within the Party, surely the cause of such discord should be democratically debated to a mutually satisfactory conclusion within the Party which accepts democracy and socialism as its main pillars and its main political basic beliefs. To bring party politics into the Assembly means not a loss of confidence of the Party Assemblymen and Party members in the collective leadership but, Sir, on the contrary, it means the loss of confidence of the collective leadership in some of the Assemblymen who represent the majority view in the Party. Can we, the second rung leaders of the People's Action Party, vote for this motion and associate ourselves with the collective leadership to indicate the loss of confidence in our comrades in the rank and file who have worked tirelessly and with complete disregard for their own personal safety and interests to put us into this Assembly? In the Enright affair, the Party collective leadership enunciated the policy, and rightly too, but with uncalled for arrogance, that only Singapore citizens may participate in Singapore politics. May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, also plead with humility and with sincerity that only Party members be allowed to participate in party politics? To invite the Opposition to participate in party politics, as this motion has obviously called for by implication, would be tantamount to surrendering the rights and privileges of Party members to Members of the Opposition without apportioning to them the duties, the responsibilities and the hard work that is expected of every single P.A.P. member. It breaks my heart, Mr Speaker, Sir, to say such blunt things to the collective leadership and in particular to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who have both been my mentors and political tutors and whom I regard with deep respect and affection. Political convictions must come before personalities and before sentiments, and I am left with no alternative but to let my head rule my heart. Mr Speaker, Sir, as this motion before the House is intimately associated with the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister published in yesterday's newspapers, I feel obliged to make two comments on the Prime Minister's letter. I am deeply disturbed, Sir, that the Prime Minister should deem it fit to put the cap of the Communist Left on the heads of all socialists who disagree with him. I also feel gravely concerned, Sir, that he should imply that all those who have expressed doubts or harboured suspicion about the Tunku's grand design are the Communist Left or are Communist stooges. Mr Speaker, Sir, I state here categorically in this House that I stand for the merger and the unification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. It is by a cruel and deliberate act of colonialism that we stand isolated from our hinterland, very much as a new-born babe is snatched away from its mother overflowing with the milk of human kindness. We all believe that merger as a historical event is inevitable and inescapable. And in all our Party statements before the elections we stated in the most categorical terms that merger is the long-term objective of the Party. We explained in a great deal of detail that the Alliance Government is anti-merger because of the one million Chinese in Singapore and because of the Leftist danger or menace in Singapore. In two years of government the P.A.P. has not changed any of these two facts. Suddenly the Tunku with colonial connivance calls for a super merger. Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot be reprimanded for harbouring doubts and suspicion. Being loyal members of the People's Action Party and members with full confidence in the collective leadership, we ask for clarification and we ask for information. Instead of discussing the issue with us at a Party meeting under expert guidance and under wise leadership, we have been dubbed as anti-merger, and a sudden demand for an open vote of confidence in the Government is made on us. Sir, we understand and we appreciate that merger is not palatable to the Tunku and his Alliance Government and that we are in no position to make uncompromising demands on the Federation. But we feel strongly that in a negotiation of such import, the collective leadership must have the full mandate of the Party and the people before it can proceed. As socialists and Party members loyal to Party objectives, we must know the minimum terms and conditions and the compromisable terms and conditions before we can give our mandate. Had we not accepted the Party analysis as laid down in the Fourth Anniversary Celebration Souvenir as to why the Alliance in the Federation is anti-merger, we would not need to know the minimum and the compromisable conditions before we gave our mandate to the collective leadership. The sudden change of heart by the Tunku in offering us super merger knocked the ground off our feet. We are grateful for his graciousness, for his charity, for his magnanimity, but we have a right to know from our own leaders under what terms this merger or super merger is to be brought about. Even if our minimum terms and conditions could not be fulfilled, we would have the satisfaction of knowing that we have been associated in fighting for our glorious political goal. But nothing about the super merger is told to us. Instead we are asked to give blanket approval - which under ordinary circumstances I have no hesitation at all to give - and a vote of confidence to the Government. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, Sir, I plead with the Prime Minister to withdraw this motion. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you have heard the sad and the rather pathetic call of the Prime Minister, "That this House expresses its confidence in the Government." Sad and pathetic because it comes from a Government that still has 39 seats in the Assembly and is faced by an Opposition of only 12, as has been ably put by the Member for Nee Soon. Thirty-nine against 12, and the Government has asked the House to express a vote of confidence in the Government.

Order. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health referred to as the Member for Nee Soon. I take it he is still the Parliamentary Secretary?

I beg your pardon, Sir, I meant the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health. The Prime Minister asks for a clear mandate from the Assembly. I say to him: the Prime Minister does not require such a clear mandate from the Assembly. He requires it from the Party and not from the Assembly.

From the country!

Why is it so? What has happened in the short period of two years that has led a strong, stable Government to adopt such a move? It seems like yesterday that we saw a popularly elected Government that had the overwhelming support of the people marching into the Assembly with the acclaim and good wishes of all Singapore. We were known as the best organised and best disciplined Party in Singapore politics. It has also been said that we are the most promising political party in the whole of South-East Asia. The leadership had taken great pride in this. The 43 Members on the Government side at that time presented so formidable and so invincible a front that it looked as if nothing in the political arena in Singapore could ever dent it. The voice of the Opposition could hardly be heard in the thunder of the Government benchers. Even today, would the Opposition have dared to move a motion of no confidence when they do not even have enough Members to occupy their front benches, and when the Government side has hardly sufficient elbow room? Yet the irony of the situation is this. It is not the Opposition that is moving a motion of no confidence. The Government still has a clear majority of 39 seats against 12 - more than three times the number on the Opposition Benches. And they have come to the House today grovelling on bended knees, as it were, to ask for a vote of confidence in the Government. It is fantastic! A unique situation! Nowhere in any part of the world that practises parliamentary democracy do we find such a comic spectacle - a Government commanding an absolute and overwhelming majority of 3� times the number of seats in the Opposition asking for a vote of confidence. A vote of confidence!

Hear, hear!

For what? So that it may carry out its inglorious design for the destruction of (1) intra-party opposition to the leadership, and (2) other Left-wing forces feared by the leadership that regards such forces as a serious challenge to their present hold on the party leadership. The general public has now focused its attention on the intra-party struggle. Well, what is wrong with the Party? One thing: it is the lack of intra-party democracy. Yes, it is the very lack of democracy we hear so much about in this House. This very lack of intra-party democracy that has brought about such a ludicrously chaotic situation in the Government today. It sounds almost like a dream. Democracy - one of the chief tenets of the P.A.P. Democracy that has been twisted out of shape and out of recognition by the leadership of the P.A.P. Democracy, the meaning of which has been twisted by the P.A.P. leadership to mean something entirely different, to mean non-discussion, non-consultation; to mean, "When I order you, obey. What I say, you follow. What I say is true and right. What you say is false and wrong." An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this stage, I crave your indulgence if I appear to digress a little. I propose to give the House the background that has led to this motion. In the P.A.P. democracy is the special property of the very few, the heavenly-born, specially endowed, a coterie of very special and privileged people - the P.A.P. leadership. The majority in the P.A.P., the rank and file, the true workers in the P.A.P., those who do all the ground work, who move, work, live and eat among the masses; feeling the pulse and temper of the masses - they have never known the true meaning of intra-party democracy. Do they take part in intra-party discussion and intra-party consultation when major policies are decided on? When decisions are taken which affect the livelihood and destiny of the people of Singapore? Are they ever consulted? No, Sir, they are never consulted. And the Party set-up is such that there is nothing they can do about it - hardly anything. The Party leadership does not regard the rank and file as men and women with brains and intelligence. Such brains and intelligence the P.A.P. leadership believes to be the special prerogative of the leadership and is only found in the leadership. Any criticism is smacked down as unconstructive. Is criticism unconstructive when one asks the leadership not to be arrogant to the people? Indeed, the rank and file, all the rest of the party are merely tools fit to be pushed around by the leadership for the glory of the leadership. Their's not to reason why. Their's but to do and die. Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret I have to bore the House with all these unsavory facts. But some may ask, "What of the cadres in the Party? Don't they help to formulate Party policy?" Theoretically they do. But in actual practice - no. The cadres elect the C.E.C. in a cadres conference. The C.E.C. in turn select provisional cadres and later confirm them as cadres. A case of you scratching my back and I scratching yours, Mr Speaker. It is also, Sir, a case of the leadership appointing the cadres and the cadres appointing the leadership. And who select the cadres? How-

Order. I am just wondering whether all these details have any relevance to the motion before us. I do not think the Assembly is interested in how the leadership is appointed by the Party itself. We want to know whether the House has confidence in the Government.

I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker. All these form the background of the motion that has been put before the House today. Unless you have a clear picture of the background, Mr Speaker, you may not fully understand what has happened and why this motion has been brought forward today. I ask, "Who select the cadres? And how do the members qualify to become cadres?" Mr Speaker, Sir, your guess is as good as mine. The people will be shocked and surprised to learn that all this selection of cadres is done by a few persons, and if your views are known to be different from the views of the leaders, well, you can whistle for your cadreship.

Order. I think I must stop the hon. Member. He is going into too many details which do not really interest this Assembly as an Assembly. It might be interesting in some other forum. But in this Assembly, I do not think he should go into these details. I think the hon. Member has made his point. He has alleged that there has been no, as he calls it, intra-party democracy. I think he has made that point and further details will be irrelevant.

Mr Speaker, I just crave your indulgence, and I hope you will allow me to present the facts in an orderly manner so that everybody, not only everybody in this Assembly but all the people in Singapore who are most interested in this debate, will know the facts. On 31st May, 1959, - this is just a little bit more. Mr Speaker - there were 500 cadres. After what is known as the Ong Eng Guan incident all the original cadres were eliminated and new cadres were formed. Until a few months ago in a Party that boasts of a membership of five figures there were only 70 cadres-

Order. I think I will have to stop the hon. Member if he does not bow to the ruling of the Chair. Perhaps he can go on to a different aspect of his speech.

I bow to your decision, Mr Speaker, Sir. Anyway, you can see how every new situation inside the Party has given birth to a new set of cadres. Nobody really knows outside the P.A.P. leadership who the cadres are. It is a closely guarded secret, because disclosure of this cadres list will bring in a lot of embarrassing questions which cannot be answered satisfactorily. As far as I know, Mr Speaker, a good number of old party faithfuls have not been confirmed as cadres because they are known to hold views different from those of the leadership. And these are the people who have sacrificed so much to help the P.A.P. to power. Their only sin seems to be that they are people of conviction, not so easily malleable to the whims and fancies of the leadership and unwilling to be sycophants. I ask you, Mr Speaker, is this democracy? Is this democracy? Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I have just said, it is clear that there is no such thing as democracy inside the P.A.P. It is this lack of intra-party democracy that has brought the P.A.P. to its present state of instability and caused a so-called crisis in spite of the Government majority in the Assembly. The leadership has made a complete mockery of democracy inside the Party. There is complete dissatisfaction and frustration amongst the rank and file. Party members have lost confidence in the present Party leadership. The leaders have their noses in the clouds and their feet off the ground, and already stand utterly discredited in the eyes of the majority in the Party. Such then, Sir, is the reason why we have the motion of confidence tabled by the Hon. the Prime Minister before the House today. It is not the lack in numbers amongst the Government benches that is causing this anxiety, uncertainty, instability and lack of confidence. It is the Party leadership that is denied this confidence. That, Mr Speaker, is the secret of the motion. That is why we have this absurd comic opera of a Government with 39 seats out of 51 asking for a vote of confidence. Sir, you saw the strength of the P.A.P. giant two years ago. Today, you see the weakness in this strength. The weak link, the chink in the armour, is this lack of intra-party democracy. It is really ridiculous that an intra-party struggle between two factions should have been brought into: this Assembly. It is an intra-party struggle between the leadership and the rank and file. From a purely intra-party struggle the P.A.P. leadership has, by various twists, turns and somersaults, magnified it into a much bigger issue. It has become a special crisis that has been brought before the House. Of course, this is done with a very special object in view. They now stage this comic opera, this super comic opera, I think, in order that they may bring the intra-party struggle into the Assembly so as to confuse the people. It is really tragic and pathetic that our leadership have so lost their grip on the Party and on the affairs of the State that they have now become totally bankrupt of political ideas. When politicians have to resort to smearing their opponents in the hope of salvaging their own fast-sinking prestige, then surely it is time they stepped down from the political stage and took a long, long holiday. Such smears are not something new. The Lim Yew Hock Government-

Thank you!

- used these same tactics against the P.A.P. There were the same bogeymen of the extremist and the Communist. Now we have it all over again. We have anticipated such smear tactics as was said in our letter to the Chairman of the P.A.P. It has become fashionable for the present P.A.P. leadership to smear all who disagree with them as stooges, or as being under the influence of this person or that person. More recently, the smear has taken the extremely dangerous turn of labelling all who disagree with the P.A.P. leadership as non-Malayan, communal or even pro-Communists. Let us trace the smear campaign through the history of the P.A.P. When the Party was first formed in 1954 all those in the P.A.P. were staunch anti-colonialists. In 1957, the P.A.P. was divided into two groups - the non-Communists and the pro-Communists. In 1959, there were the social democrats against the Left-wing adventurers, fireside revolutionaries and extremists. Now, in 1961, only a few weeks back, it is the national Left against the non-national Left and parish-pump patriots. Today, it is the non-Communist Left against the Communist Left; and right now, today, in this Assembly hall, it is the P.A.P. leadership against the duped, the confused and the gullible. It is highly interesting and revealing to a lot of people in Singapore. But finally let us ask the P.A.P. leadership: what is Left and who is Left? Is it the P.A.P. leadership which is Left, or is it Lee Kuan Yew who is Left? There is a lot of talk of merger and anti-merger. Who is anti-merger? We are all for merger. But the confederation is surely something new and different. Is it wrong to ask for details before we give our support? Why must our leadership give full and unqualified support to the confederation scheme before even consulting the Party? Is this not clear evidence of the lack of consultation and lack of intra-party democracy? Cannot the leadership see that it is this lack of intra-party democracy that has caused disillusionment, frustration and non-confidence in the leadership, and hence this motion today? It is really farcical, Sir, that some politicians have so degenerated that they have to concoct stories to frighten the people. In so doing, they hope to win their support. Politicians with the experience, the calibre and undoubted ability of the P.A.P. leadership should be the last to resort to such means of finding support for their fast tottering empire. With all the years of experience behind them, surely they know that the only firm support a politician gets is the solid support of the people. You do not get the solid support of the people by frightening them with ghosts, spectres and bogeys. You get their solid support only by genuinely and constantly looking after their interests and by giving expression to their needs and aspirations. Inside the Party you can achieve unity only by a genuine and constant practice of intra-party democracy. In our case today, that can be done by the calling of a 51 Branch Executives and Central Executives meeting to discuss Party policies and decisions. Let the P.A.P. leadership prove their genuine love of democracy which they pretend to defend by calling this 51-branch meeting and accepting the decision of this 51-branch meeting. Instead of trying to find support and confidence inside the Party, the leadership have now come to the Assembly to beg for this same support. Whose support do they expect to get? The support of the pro-colonialists? The support of the Members for Tanglin, Cairnhill, Mountbatten, Farrer Park? Sir, let me emphasise once again that this confidence vote should be sought not in this House but inside the Party. The Government is not short of Assemblymen to form a majority in the Assembly. The P.A.P. leadership do not need the confidence of the Assembly, but they need, and need it very badly too, the confidence of the Party which alas they do not command. A confidence vote in the Assembly will not make the P.A.P. any the stronger. The P.A.P. can only be strong if the leadership have the confidence of the rank and file and if they pursue a correct policy. The motion therefore should be withdrawn. The confidence vote should be sought in the 51-branch meeting inside the Party. The P.A.P. leadership have hoped to bamboozle and confuse the people with red herrings. The motion today is merely a subterfuge to diddle support for the P.A.P. leadership from outside forces. I ask these men of ability, intelligence and guts not to run away from their own Party, but to go back and face their own comrades. This attempt to use the Government to solve an intra-party crisis will not help matters. The few leaders who do not have the support of the majority in the Party are holding on, monopolising and almost appropriating the Party apparatus as their own private possession. If the P.A.P. leadership want a confidence vote, let them seek it at the 51 branch meeting inside the Party. The motion has no place in this Assembly. It should be withdrawn. 4.21 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been reminded by the Hon. the Prime Minister that this session was adjourned sine die on the 14th of June, a procedure which normally immediately precedes the prorogation of a session. But for some curious reason now manifest, no prorogation was ordered. Did they have in mind by any chance, Mr Speaker, the possibility of this emergency session? We do not know, however, that under the provisions of Standing Order 5, the Leader of the House has sought to convene and obtain your consent for the convening of this emergency sitting in the public interest. Sir, the provisions of Standing Order 5 are intended for moments of national emergency-

Order. I think if the Member for Anson wishes to question a decision of the Speaker - and this was a decision of the Speaker - his remedy lies in Standing Order 53 which says that the decision on any point of order - and this is a point of order - "shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the Assembly except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose." And the hon. Member can give two clear days' notice of that motion.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that so early I was misunderstood. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no intention to criticize or question in any shape or form your convening of this Assembly. I am seeking to clarify that this is deemed to be an emergency period for a special question of public interest. Now, what, Sir, is this emergency? We have heard the Hon. the Prime Minister and we have listened with incredulity, no doubt on the part of some of his colleagues, to a colourful children's fairy tale of British lions and Communist bears. But it does transpire, Sir, that the essence of this emergency is that the Hon. the Prime Minister desires to continue to hold the office of Prime Minister, and his colleagues desire to continue sitting in their padded scarlet leather arm-chairs. If I might borrow an adjective of the hon. Member who spoke last, I would indeed agree, Sir, that this is a pathetic motion. Does the Government really seek from this Assembly a vote of confidence? Is that its purpose? The Hon. the Prime Minister has informed you, Sir, that he seeks from this House a mandate to govern. He has sought this from the people of Singapore in Hong Lim and in Anson, and he has been rejected. How does he seek from this Assembly at this stage a mandate to govern? I hope to show you, Mr Speaker, that, in fact, that is not the purpose of this motion. In fact, they have put a vote of confidence to the people of Singapore and that vote of confidence they have lost; and nothing they can do here, with a majority obtained two years ago when the people had faith in the P.A.P. leadership, can obliterate the mass of evidence of disillusionment of the people of Singapore with the leadership of the ruling Party, which is the Government today. You must be aware, Mr Speaker, it is your duty to take cognizance of the fact, that three months ago there was a by-election in Hong Lim and that the ruling Party, should you read the newspapers, Sir, fought that by-election with all the forces at its command. In fact, two days before the end of the gruelling seven weeks, the Prime Minister is reported to have informed the voters of Hong Lim that the P.A.P. would treat the by-election as a vote of confidence. I read, Sir, an excerpt of a report of a speech alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister and printed in the Straits Times of the 28th of April, the day before Polling Day. Despite-

Order. The hon. Member for Anson is not quite a new "boy" in this Assembly. I have ruled that if extracts are to be read from a newspaper, that newspaper itself should be produced. I have no doubt the hon. Member will be able to produce the newspaper in time. Not only a cutting, but the whole paper should be produced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not aware of that ruling and I certainly apologise for bringing cuttings only. But I undertake, Sir, within a reasonable time to make available to this House the complete paper. If I might be permitted, Sir: `Despite what the pundits and experts had said about the Hong Lim by-election, the P.A.P. had deliberately chosen to underline the importance of Hong Lim.' This is part of the speech of the Hon. the Prime Minister: `The P.A.P. could well have chosen not to, having 40 seats in the Assembly and therefore was in an impregnable position constitutionally. But, as he and his colleagues saw the problem, the P.A.P. was in power at the collective behest of the people [not the Assembly]'- "Collective behest of the people" - quite right. `... who voted for it on the basis of a clear-cut programme setting out its intentions. The party would continue to govern only if it was in the interest of the people and was even prepared to govern against its own interest if it was in the interest of the people.' You are aware, Sir, of the massive defeat which the P.A.P. suffered in Hong Lim. That vote of confidence was unquestionably lost. I know, Sir, you have this afternoon heard the story of the British lion and the Communist bear, this fairy tale for the consumption of little children to prove to them that the defeats in Hong Lim and Anson did not indicate the disenchantment of the people of Singapore with the P.A.P. leadership. Oh, no, it came about by the Machiavellian machinations of the British lion who sought - the richest of all fairy tales - to encourage the Communists to form a government. It has not been said, Sir, but I will be interested to know from later speakers, whether the Member for Hong Lim and myself are deemed now to be the standard-bearers of the Communist Party. You are conscious, Sir, that immediately after the massive defeat in Hong Lim - and you have been so informed quite frankly by the Prime Minister that it was considered a grave defeat - serious thought was given to the resignation of the Party. I may well be misinformed, but my information is that the Party considered the defeat was the defeat of the Prime Minister alone, not of the Party, and they decided to continue. The Prime Minister issued a statement that the Party would reconsider the position after the Anson by-election. Sir, let me make this clear. In the Anson by-election, Merdeka was the issue, not the slogan, Sir, but the concept of independence for the people of Singapore. The continuance of the Prime Minister as Prime Minister was an issue, but I never sought to make the continuance of the Government an issue. The Prime Minister would not have it so, and he sought consistently and repeatedly - and so did the P.A.P. - to make it known to the people of Singapore that they would treat the vote in Anson as a vote of confidence. May I, Sir, with your permission, in respect of this challenge of the P.A.P. to the people of Singapore, read only some very recent statements made by them? You were referred to a forum organised by the University Socialist Club. I was one of those who were invited to speak. I must confess, Sir, that I was not conscious that it was Lord Selkirk who had persuaded the University Socialist Club to hold that meeting in order to bring about the downfall of the P.A.P. and a government of the Communists. I am very interested to learn that. But what is interesting to this House, I trust, Sir, is that this stalwart of the P.A.P. to whom the Prime Minister has already referred, a man by the name of C. V. Devan Nair, stated at this forum, "P.A.P. will not stay a punching bag".

Order. I would like to get these things in proper order. Perhaps the Member for Anson will tell us the name of the paper from which the cutting is made.

I am reading, Sir, from the Straits Times which you will remember two years ago almost to a day was referred to by the Hon. the Prime Minster as the diabolic English Press that falsifies and distorts the news in order to divorce the English-speaking from the rest of the people of Singapore. Sir, this diabolic English Press, the Straits Times, under date 12th July, 1961, which I intend to make available to the House, reports with considerable prominence the speaker for the P.A.P. at this function - the representative of the P.A.P., the editor of Petir, its official organ. And this is what it reports him as having said - and being there, Sir, I can confirm it. `He [that is, Mr Devan Nair] found it incredible that some people who claimed close association with the party should attack it and say that everything the party did was wrong. When the party said they wanted to give the mandate back to the people, they were told they must not resign. "In other words," Mr Nair said, "we should remain as a useful punching bag for other people. We are not going to remain a punching bag for anyone."' Sir, in other words, Mr Nair is telling the people of Singapore, "We don't like criticism. We won't accept criticism. If in the Anson by-election the electorate votes against the P.A.P., we will consider that a criticism which is unacceptable and we will resign because we will not remain a punching bag." The first public expression of dictatorial arrogance on which the hon. Backbenchers have thrown such considerable light today. It was thought, Sir, by this Party in its smug complacency of its majority that it was indispensable and that it threw down the challenge, the threat of a drunken gambler, to the people of Singapore, "You vote against us, and we will resign." Then, Sir, on 13th July we have the organ of the P.A.P. coming out in an editorial again making the issue of the Anson by-election a vote of confidence in the Government. I can place this one, Sir - it is unmutilated. It is known as Petir, the organ of the People's Action Party, Thursday, 13th July, 1961, two days before this so-called crucial by-election in which the P.A.P. leadership consciously and intentionally - whether with or without the support of their rank and file, I do not know - made the issue one of confidence in the Government: `Democracy on Trial - what some people find inexplicable [says this paper] is why the Government, with 39 seats in the assembly, should devote so much time and trouble in trying to recover one seat in Anson. ...the P.A.P.'s approach to democracy is based on the belief that an effective government must clearly have moral authority to rule.' I say bravo! `The fact that at any particular moment a Government has a majority in the Assembly is not conclusive proof that it enjoys moral authority. All that it proves is that at the time it was elected, it had the backing of the people. However, in the course of its life, a Government may, for a variety of reasons, forfeit popular support. The Government may have got in under false pretences. It may have become effete, tyrannical or corrupt.' Let me say this, Sir, I am not suggesting corruption. `Or it may be that the people may have changed their minds about the very policies they endorsed. Whatever the reasons, a democratic Government, whether good or bad, which has lost its moral authority to rule, cannot in the long run be effective. In the Anson by-election, what is being put to the test is whether, as the Opposition groups claim, the Government has lost this moral authority.' That was, if I may say so, Sir, an honest piece of journalism and an honest stand. It said to the people, "We were elected two years ago but much has happened since then. You may not want us today. We may have become tyrannical. We may have become effete. We will treat this Anson by-election as a vote of confidence." A very honest stand indeed. It is clear, therefore, that the P.A.P. recognised that the mandate it received in 1959 was no longer valid, and it sought in Anson to ascertain whether it had, in its own words, "forfeited popular support", whether the people believed it had come in under false pretences - I repeat "false pretences" - and whether in the view of the people it was no longer a Party that they trusted. Now this editorial clearly indicates that the P.A.P. recognised that the majority it had in the Assembly as a result of the votes of the people two years ago does not necessarily reflect the feelings of the people of Singapore, that it was no use coming here for a mandate, that a mandate was needed from the people - and not, as the last speaker said, a mandate from the Party. The Party is not the people. It sought - and quite rightly - a mandate from the people because it recognised that in the interim period it might have lost that confidence. Now let us recognise, Sir, that this vote of confidence was sought in a P.A.P. stronghold. Anson in 1959 was won by a P.A.P. candidate with a smashing majority over, I believe, four other candidates. And what is particularly interesting, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the way Anson was built up by the P.A.P. as being the quintessence, the sample of all Singapore. They were prepared to take the vote in Anson. Sir, only two more paragraphs: `Anson is in many respects a good testing ground. It is a Singapore in miniature as regards distribution of population in terms of communities and social classes. Unlike Hong Lim, where special and purely local factors may have influenced decisions, in Anson, it is a straight-forward fight between the P.A.P. on the one hand and a heterogeneous collection of political parties who between them are espousing all the causes that the P.A.P. has refused to take up. It is a test of whether a constituency which is typical of Singapore as a whole is prepared to endorse the policies and actions of the P.A.P. Government during its two years in office.' Sir, in case you say that that could have been hardly noticed by anybody as being a Party newspaper, let me assure you that the diabolic English Press - and I have no doubt the honest Chinese, Malay and Tamil Press too - gave it full publicity - "ANSON: A TEST FOR P.A.P.". I read from the Straits Times of Friday, the day before the by-election - "By-election will decide if it still has `moral right to stay in power'" and considerable excerpts from this paper. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they intentionally sought in these two areas - and particularly in Anson - a vote of confidence of the people. They lost this vote. The Hon. the Prime Minister refers to gamblers. There are gamblers who refuse to pay up on their debt of honour. The P.A.P. leadership refuses to meet the promises that it has so clearly made to the people of Singapore in the by-elections of Hong Lim and of Anson. You are told, Sir - I am not surprised; it is now traditional - that the victory of the Workers Party in Anson is suggested to be due to the Machiavellian machinations of Lord Selkirk. That of all things is perhaps the most amusing. But there are other allegations. We did not win it, Sir, not at all. They did not lose it, Sir, not a bit of it. They did not lose it and consequently they do not have to pay up their debts. They remind me of the gambler who goes to a firm of solicitors and asks them to protect him from his gambling debts through legal technicalities. Sir, they refuse to pay up on their promises and their threat to the people of Singapore. And they come to this Assembly with this fairy tale of the lion and the bear in order to continue in office for another two years. Sir, they were quite convinced of victory, because there are no millionaires in Anson. It is a particularly poor Division. I doubt if there is another Division in Singapore which is poorer. It is a particular stronghold of the P.A.P. Also there were 1,500 new voters about whom some nasty rumours are spreading around. Whatever the truth may be, Sir, the facts are that the P.A.P. had almost half the support it had before, in spite of the enlarged electorate by more than 1,500. I ask the P.A.P. leadership whether, in coming to this Assembly and counting the noses of those of its Back-benchers who were elected two years ago, it thinks it gives itself the moral right to stay in power. Finally, Sir, on the day of the election this diabolic English Press, which distorts and falsifies facts in order to delude the people in the interests of imperialism and capitalism, and which has for some mysterious reason taken the P.A.P. leadership to its clammy arms, came out with a screaming poster, "ANSON - ALL AT STAKE-".

Order. I think the hon. Member may find the Speaker of this Assembly is perhaps old-fashioned. I have always been against any demonstrations of that nature. All I think the hon. Member is entitled to is to say there was a poster and to read the contents of that poster, and not to make a demonstration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was seeking to show you "ANSON-ALL AT STAKE". It is important to notice, Sir, the psychological effect on the electorate of machinations of this character. Then, Sir, the editorial of this diabolic English Press. I read now, Sir, from July 15th (the day of the election) Straits Times, Saturday. The heading, across the front page, "ALL AT STAKE NOW". "Lee [that is, our Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir]: This decides whether State goes off rails". And in the editorial itself, we have details of the horrors of what would happen if the Anson by-election were lost by the P.A.P. I think, Sir, I have sufficiently proved to you and sufficiently reminded the Members opposite that the P.A.P. leadership consciously, intentionally and repeatedly made the Anson by-election a vote of confidence in the Government, and as clearly as possible threatened the people of Singapore with resignation if it lost. It has lost. The P.A.P. lost the Anson by-election, its own stronghold, and this Party, which calls itself a consistent Party, refused to accept the very vote that it has sought. It refuses to accept because that would mean the resignation of the Government. It is not a test which the Opposition laid down, Mr Speaker. It is not a test which I sought to lay down. I made the issue of the continuance of the Prime Minister one of the planks of my platform. It is a test which the Prime Minister, not wishing to go alone, sought to drag the entire P.A.P., the entire Government. And he has lost. Does he resign? He is, I say with respect, in honour bound to resign, though naturally nothing in the law can prevent him from not resigning. Sir, to your knowledge, we had the example not very long ago of another government which refused to resign. It came to be known as the Jaga Kreta Government. Some Members may remember it. It started off somewhere in June 1956 with a promise by the Prime Minister that his was only a caretaker government and that he would resign within a few months, in a short while. Well, there was-

Order. I do not think we ought to confuse the issue. It was the Chief Minister then; not the Prime Minister.

I thank you for the correction, Mr Speaker, Sir, It was indeed the Chief Minister, not the Prime Minister. And the Chief Minister continued in office, and continued in office, and continued in office, right up to the bitter legal end. He had the legal power. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, have these gentlemen opposite the legal power constitutionally despite the will of the people, despite their promises, to continue in office. And in order to make it palatable to their own consciences - I do not know if it is possible for one so to delude oneself - they bring out this story about the Communist Left and the non-Communist Left and the British lion dining with the Communist bear, and the plots. The Hon. the Prime Minister has always had a predilection for the cloak and dagger approach, and I am not a bit surprised, in fact, I am delighted at this example of his ingenuity. Sir, I did make the issue in Anson the question of the resignation of the Prime Minister. I trust you will believe me when I say, Sir, that I did it out of no personal malice but because, having watched his machinations over the past two years, I am satisfied that his continued occupation of this office constitutes a grave danger to our people. Sir, I am not one bit abashed to say to you in front of him that I have a very genuine regard for his political ability. I am equally aghast at his lack of respect for human beings, his lack - if I may be permitted to say so, Sir, - of humanity, humility. I have never believed, Sir, in the myth of collective leadership of the P.A.P., and it is with interest that I read of a letter issued by the eight hon. Members opposite declaring, in the clearest possible terms, that there is no such collective leadership. For myself, if I may be permitted without suggesting any criticism. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may be permitted to say so, I regret you did not hear in full the last speaker. Because it seems to me that the examples he gave of the lack of democracy within the People's Action Party are evidence against the vote of confidence which these gentlemen opposite seek. How can we have confidence in the democratic leadership of the P.A.P. when they have such dictatorship within their own Party? Sir, would you permit me to read to you one passage from this letter of the "eight" to the Chairman, the Leader of this House, printed in the Straits Times of the 14th of July, 1961: `There has never been much practice of intra-party democracy in the PAP, though democracy is one of our chief tenets. Decisions have always been imposed upon the rank and file by a few individuals at the top. Democratic discussion, with fullest possible consultation, is a thing almost foreign to even the party executives on whom implementation of party policies depend. Very often the secretary-general or some Ministers make a speech in the Assembly or elsewhere and the rest of the party is informed that what has been said has become the policy of the party. If we are to persuade fellow Asians to a democratic way of life, we ourselves must first practise democracy. It is because of this lack of intra-party democracy that we urgently request you to influence the CEC to hold meetings so that policy discussion and consultation may take place and intra-party democracy observed.' I think it must be clear, Sir, that in the dictionary of the P.A.P., "collective leadership" means the leadership of the Prime Minister and his colleagues collect. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to go into details because Members all are intelligent persons, but it cannot be doubted that the loss of Hong Lim and of Anson indicates in the clearest possible fashion the disillusionment of the people of Singapore with the Prime Minister and their strong resentment of him. His refusal to resign is a slap in the face of the people of Singapore. I have read, Sir, as you have read, the farce of the exchange of letters between the Hon. the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister informed the Deputy Prime Minister of his willingness to resign and his equal willingness to continue in office. The question is this, Sir: it is not the Deputy Prime Minister, nor is it this House that can give the Hon. the Prime Minister the vote of confidence which he has lost in Hong Lim and in Anson of his own choice. I say to you, Sir, that anyone with elementary respect for the people will accept the verdict. But no, we have this curious summoning of this Assembly in order to cover up the Prime Minister's refusal, to honour his moral obligation, and to give him a specious excuse for his continued occupation of his post.

Order. I take it that the Member for Anson will take some time?

Indeed, Sir.

In that case, I propose to suspend for half an hour. I shall take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m. Debate resumed. Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned, I was drawing the analogy between what became known as the Jaga Kreta Government and the anxiety displayed in this motion by the present Government to remain in office despite the test which it set itself of confidence in the country and which it lost. Sir, the Party having lost the vote of confidence of the country, we now have this super spectacle of an emergency sitting called in order to bring up a super smokescreen to cover up the retreat of the Party from its moral obligations and to build up some excuses for its continued existence. Sir, with respect, I find that the bogey or the fairy tale or the ghost story of the Earl of Selkirk persuading the Communists of Singapore to take office is something that is unworthy of further comment. I myself have had the pleasure of being the guest of the Earl of Selkirk and I can solemnly assure you, Sir, that at no time did he seek to persuade me to join the Communist Party. The other bogey that we now have is that the central issue before the people is merger or no merger. Sir, the P.A.P. tell us that they genuinely seek merger with the Federation of Malaya. I would ask you to recognise, Mr Speaker, that today in this very House the Hon. the Prime Minister laid down impossible conditions for the achievement of that merger. He said the P.A.P. seeks the merger of Singapore with the Federation on conditions of autonomy in education and labour policies. Sir, the Prime Minister himself is a lawyer and I do credit him with an understanding of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. He must be conscious that though the Federation of Malaya permits of the incorporation of new States as constituent States within the Federation, they would all be subject to the same laws, and it is impossible under the present Constitution of the Federation for Singapore or any other State to have the privileged position of autonomy in labour and education legislation. If it is meant seriously, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we must believe that it was meant, then it must be suggested that we will compel or seek to obtain from the Federation an amendment to the Constitution of the Federation, an amendment which would require a two-thirds majority of the Federation Parliament, an amendment which would put Singapore as a State superior to any other State that is a constituent member of the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, we are all too conscious that for many years now the Government of Singapore has officially offered to the Federation merger as a constituent State unconditionally. I have disclosed that I made that offer in 1955. I know it was repeated again and again, Mr Speaker, up to about the middle of or early 1956. I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it has been repeated since then. We have each been rebuffed, sometimes courteously, and sometimes even sharply, on the offer to merge as a State unconditionally. Yet it is suggested by the Prime Minister that Singapore can and will achieve merger with the Federation in 1963, with autonomy in education and labour legislation. I say to you, Sir, that that is a day-dream which they know to be a day-dream. I do not know whether they expect the people to take it seriously, but they themselves cannot believe in it seriously. We have the hard reality that for six years now we have been refused any kind of opening of official conversations for a merger. For the last two years they have even refused a Common Market. In those circumstances, Sir, I say that it is the P.A.P. leadership that is making impossible conditions leading to the impossibility of merger. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is alleged that the issue in Anson was merger or no merger, that the T.U.C. Six came out openly against merger, and that I received their support. I think I ought to make it clear, Sir. The Workers Party at no time sought the support of the T.U.C. Six or anybody else except the voters of Anson. We do not know who voted for us, quite naturally. But it is a curious thing to suggest that the T.U.C. Six and the three Political Secretaries came out openly against merger and yet they would support me because, Sir, I am on record prior to Election Day as having stated quite categorically that I have at all times been and am in favour of merger. I do not believe in seeking for Singapore an unhealthy superiority. We can and must go in only as a constituent State unconditionally. I think it is important, Mr Speaker, that we should take cognizance of the letter of the Hon. the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and which was published in the Press yesterday. This letter deals with the phoney issue that today in Singapore the question is not whether we are to achieve independence with or without merger, but the question is merger or no merger. I read, Sir, from this diabolic English Press dated the 19th of July, 1961, page 1, headed: 'TEST OF STRENGTH Dear comrade chairman [The Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister] - we are both aware of the grave difficulties that lie ahead for the government and of the danger of industrial unrest for political objectives now that three political secretaries have openly opposed the government's policy of independence through merger.' Where, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this open declaration of opposition of the three Political Secretaries to independence through merger? This bogey of which we are being warned and which calamity only the continuance in office of the Hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues can prevent from occurring. Mr Speaker. Sir, on the same page of the Straits Times, on which this is printed, appears in headline a statement by one of these Political Secretaries, Mr Lim Ching Siong: "`I am not against merger" And it reads: `"I realise that the aspiration of our people is to see a merger taking place between the Federation and Singapore. It has long been my dedication that I should do everything in my power to realise the aspiration of the people of Malaya, Mr Lee knows this to be a fact." "I was not, I am not and I shall not be against the unification of our country (Singapore plus the Federation)."' That, Sir, is as categorical as any human being can make it. I have no brief for the gentleman. But I have a brief, an important brief, to see that the people are not confused; to do what I can, Mr Speaker, Sir, to prevent this confusion, this smokescreen, this attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people in order that the Government should continue in office. Nowhere at any time, Mr Speaker, am I conscious of a single written word of opposition by these three Political Secretaries to the concept of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. They are not here to defend themselves. As I say, I am not interested in defending them, apart from seeking to disabuse this House of these illusions and to permit it to some extent to see through this smokescreen. The truth of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not that these three Political Secretaries are against merger, or that the eight hon. Members opposite are against merger, but that they - and this is their crime - have attacked the Government on certain specific issues. The Trade Union Six and the Political Secretaries want the release of the detainees. It has today been disclosed that the Government sought their release in August 1959. What have they done apart from presenting a memorandum? Mr Speaker, Sir, let us face it. It is perfectly true that in this Internal Security Council which was brought back by the Hon. the Prime Minister, there are executive powers, powers which were never sought of me in the Internal Security Council which was envisaged the year earlier. By some curious coincidence, the Hon. the Prime Minister, in partnership with the gentleman from Cairnhill, brought back a Constitution which gave considerable executive powers to the Internal Security Council. But these powers do not prevent the Government from issuing an order for the release of the detainees. They do give the Internal Security Council the power to issue an order to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who will then be required to put them back again. Mr Speaker, Sir, if that should happen, we would know where the fault lies. It is not necessary that the Government must then resign. The Government should resign when it loses the moral support and the confidence of the people. I can understand no reason whatsoever for the Government to resign when, in pursuance of the people's will, it takes steps which are slapped back by the superior force of British imperialism. But at no time are we aware, nor has it ever been suggested, that this Government sought to do more than present a petty paper to the Internal Security Council, and it has left it there for two whole years, Sir, I find it difficult to believe that the British Government would seek a constitutional crisis in respect of the continued detention of these people who have already been five years or four years in detention. Their utility, Sir, to any subversive organisation has been completely nullified. Now that the matter has come out into the open, no doubt we may hope to see some action. But can the Government really blame the trade union leaders for demanding the release of these detainees? These persons who, together with Lim Ching Siong and others, were providentially detained by an act of the gentleman from Cairnhill at a time when it was-

Order. I would rather the Member for Anson refer to the "gentleman from Cairnhill" as the Member for Cairnhill.

I am so sorry, Sir. The Member for Cairnhill - it is a word I myself consider more appropriate. The honourable Member for Cairnhill detained Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues at a time which was providential for the Prime Minister and his group, as saving them from the competition of their Party rivals. A curious coincidence, Mr Speaker, one which has not been lost on the Party and which has not been lost on the people. What else did the T.U.C. Six and the three Political Secretaries demand? They demanded the abolition of the Internal Security Council Is that something to take umbrage at? Are we to have it openly stated that it is the Internal Security Council which shores up this Government? That it is the Internal Security Council which protects the continued existence of this Government? Sir, at no time and nowhere can I read that any of these people, who are not here to defend themselves, have ever suggested that they did not want merger or that they wanted the abolition of the Internal Security Council in place of merger. What they have said is, "Let us have this. It is in our power now." Merger is not in our power any more than marriage is in the power of one party. We have to get the consent of the other party. We cannot drag the Federation by its hair to the altar. Sir, in so far as words have meaning, I say to you that in so far as a human being can judge from the facts, it has been proved that it is a grave falsehood to charge any group of persons named in this Assembly this afternoon with being anti-merger. The three Political Secretaries were charged by the Prime Minister as having openly opposed the Government's policy of merger. I ask the Prime Minister to prove that statement. Mr Speaker, there are, however, matters of even greater import in this letter of which I feel this House must take note. The letter adds: `You and I are aware that this is but the opening of a new test of strength between the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. We are also aware that having lost Anson we now face trials and tribulations as those who reject merger mount their campaign against the government in order to prevent it from ever reaching any agreement on principle with the Federation Government.' This bogey of those who do not want merger and seek to prevent us from obtaining merger, which we cannot get anyway from the Federation which consistently refuses. `... let me assure you that it is not my desire to absolve myself from the many unpleasant and awkward things that the government will have to do on behalf of the people in order to maintain the economy of the island, the livelihood of the people, and the peace and order of the State. It is most likely that mounting industrial action will be taken by Mr Lim Chin Siong and his confederates to coerce the party and the government to abandon its plan for merger. Now that an open break has come, it is most likely that there will be a mounting offensive on the trade union front with political and not industrial objectives. The first political objective, of course, is to break up any talk of merger with the Federation of Malaya.' Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be obvious that the allegation of the threat of industrial unrest in the context of the smear campaign of the Communist Left necessarily presages the use of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance again to detain political opponents, whom providence is not committing other Parties to detain, for the benefit of the leadership of the P.A.P. There is no one here to pick their chestnuts out of the fire unless they can persuade the British to do it through the Internal Security Council. Mr Speaker, I read with interest - I must confess with more than interest; with consternation and with surprise - the statement in this memorandum tabled by the Deputy Premier today that of the eight men released, the most important from the security point of view is Mr Lim Ching Siong, for he was the person "built up as an open front leader by the M.C.P. in 1955 and 1956". And later on, of the eight people released, "the P.A.P. Government has reason to believe that five, not including Lim Chin Siong, genuinely and sincerely subscribe to the P.A.P. democratic socialist ideology". Mr Speaker, whilst incidentally wondering at the extraordinary inconsistency of the conduct of the Government in making the so-called known front man of the Malayan Communist Party a Political Secretary, I would ask you to notice that all these symptoms augur the utilisation in massive form, in time of peace, for political purposes and the maintenance of political power of a clique, of provisions intended to be used in time of emergency for the security of the people as a whole. Nor can we, Mr Speaker, ignore that remark about Mr Lim Ching Siong mounting industrial unrest for political purposes. We are none of us so young that we can have forgotten the unhappy events of the latter part of 1956 with the grave industrial unrest which many people believed to have been inspired by the government of the day for political purposes in order to give them an excuse to bring repressive police action and to detain political opponents. It is a horrible thought, Mr Speaker, but it is one to which I must give vent. I think we must be conscious of it. We are aware that the P.A.P. leadership has constantly sought to control and enslave the trade union movement for political purposes. We are aware that even today, with the break in the T.U.C., there are many unions loyal to the P.A.P. and many trade unionists loyal to the P.A.P. We are aware that the P.A.P. is in a position to incite or organise industrial unrest. We are aware that the P.A.P. has a reputation for ruthlessness well-earned. The question, Mr Speaker, is this: let us recognise that if any person or any Party so abuse their position in this age as to bring about violence in the industrial field for the purposes of achieving or maintaining political power, such person or such Party will forever be damned in the eyes of the people of Singapore. Then, Sir, it is not inappropriate when we consider whether this Government is worthy of our confidence, not only to note that they allege in one breath that a man is a front man of the Malayan Communist Party and, at the same time, retain him and make him knowingly their Political Secretary, but also in this very Assembly they call him a traitor, saying that he has stabbed them in the back, that he is anti-merger and opposes the Government's declared policy, whilst continuing his service in the Government. I ask you to recognise, Mr Speaker, that the post of Political Secretary is one at the dispensation of the government of the day. It is not a civil service post. The Government can, at will, employ or dismiss whomsoever they think fit and quite naturally the man employed for such a post as Political Secretary must have the confidence of the Government. Yet these people whom they call Communists, traitors, instigators of riots or potential instigators of riots have not been dismissed. Wherein, Sir, is the consistency of this Government, and how does it deserve our confidence that it can act in so contradictory a fashion? Equally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the term "traitor" has been used of eight honourable Members opposite. I know they can well defend themselves. But in assessing the Government as to whether it merits a vote of confidence, apart from its past conduct, which I will not bore you with this afternoon, let us recognise that they have not sought in their own Party to deal with these so-called traitors. But they seek through a motion of confidence in this Assembly, Mr Speaker, to intimidate them and their colleagues and to retain them in order to have some sort of a majority whilst seeking to deter them from criticising the Government. We have been called in emergency session, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say with respect to you, not for any purpose of national emergency as it now transpires, but solely for the purpose of shoring up the Prime Minister in his intra-party struggle to maintain power against his own Party members. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have suffered almost as much from their leaders - it is a big "almost" - as from the British, and I say to you that the farce which is being played out today about asking the Assembly for a vote of confidence, which they have lost in the country, is adding to the disillusionment of the people with the democratic process. And so must this ghost story about the British seeking to bring about a Communist government in Singapore and this bogey about the issue in Singapore being merger or no merger. Finally, Sir, this last and most hoary of all bogeys - the Communist Left. We do have Communists, Mr Speaker, Sir - I believe but I am not sure. But I am conscious now that they neither have the strength nor the influence to affect us materially at this stage. I am also very conscious, Mr Speaker, that the tag of "Communist" has been used shamelessly, dishonestly and fraudulently in the past. I myself have been called a Communist by one newspaper, now defunct, when I came back from China. I then realised, Mr Speaker, perhaps more than at any other time, how easily the people can be deceived and how fraudulently and falsely this tag of Communist can be applied. It is a hoary tag. It is one which the British have used with very considerable success. I must say it comes as a surprise that persons whom I believe to have political acumen, on the opposite benches, should seek to resuscitate this hoary tag and apply it to their opponents. As the last speaker has pointed out, Sir, they have gone the full circle of all the abuse that they could muster -Right-Wing opportunists, Left-Wing deviationists. What are the other terms? I have forgotten them. Oh! Left-Wing lunatics. And now Communist-Left. Anything that disagrees with the Prime Minister, of course. It is significant that this cry of Communist-Left is raised in the letter speaking about industrial unrest which the Prime Minister prophesises will be organised by his own Political Secretaries. It is not that I personally am concerned for the welfare or freedom of these gentlemen, but I do remember, Sir, that they have been detained for many years - and so was Dr Chuang Chu-lin also detained under the P.P.S.O., and he is now the Vice-Chancellor of Nanyang University. They were detained on the allegation that they incited the riots and the unhappy events of the latter part of 1956. Sir, the trade unions of Singapore have learned since the Hock Lee riots that violence and unrest are always to their disadvantage. Riots are always an excuse for repressive measures directed against the workers. I believe that in Singapore more than anywhere else in the world the workers intend to exercise the utmost self-restraint, whatever the provocation, because they know that at the very first sign of any riot, they will be blamed and their struggle for social justice will meet with the grave setback it met with at the end of 1956. The Prime Minister is fully aware that his Political Secretaries, of whom he speaks as possibly inciting industrial unrest for political objectives, have played an admirable part in inculcating into the workers of Singapore an understanding of the dangers of violence whatever the provocation, and that they would be the last people on earth to incite industrial violence for political objectives; for they know that industrial violence in this small area, whether with British troops or Federation troops, would be crushed and the aftermath would be complete elimination of the working class leaders without trial on the excuse of industrial peace. Mr Speaker, I conclude with an appeal that I have made for many years and that I make yet once more. I ask the sons and daughters of Singapore of whatever Party to reflect quietly and recognise that the constitution we have is a dishonest constitution incapable of meeting our needs and incompatible with the requirements of a vital, decent people. We must recognise that to seek independence through merger alone leaves us helpless at the feet of the Federation which then has no incentive to co-operate towards merger, for it has power through the Internal Security Council to control Singapore without any responsibility and without any reciprocity, not even the necessity of a common market. Mr Speaker, Sir, in assessing this issue as to whether we give this Government our confidence, let us recognise that today it has rejected the call of independence preferably with, if necessary without, the Federation. It is a call which the very people who spoke today fully approved not so very long ago. Mr Speaker, if I might take up your time just for a little while. I would like to read to you from page 47 of Cmd. Paper No. 31 of 1956. This is a memorandum submitted on behalf of the Singapore Government with which the Hon, the Prime Minister and Mr Lim Ching Siong, as representatives of the P.A.P., fully endorsed and associated themselves with. It says: `It is, however, impossible for the people of Singapore to accept any suggestion that the fulfilment of their constitutional aspirations must await incorporation with the Federation in the indefinite future. Since we must, we ask for such fulfilment now, whilst declaring our utmost goodwill and readiness now and at all times to unite with the Federation into a single nation.' Now, Mr Speaker, at page 22, to show the inconsistency of this Government and its inadequacy, these are the statements which were then accepted by the present Prime Minister and his colleague on behalf of the P.A.P.: `Singapore is small in area, but it has a population of 1� million. That population is larger than that of New Zealand when it became a member of the League of Nations and four times that of Newfoundland when the Statute of Westminster gave it complete autonomy. There are at present seven states Members of the United Nations with populations smaller than that of Singapore, namely, Costa Rica, Iceland, Jordan, Libya, Luxembourg, Nicaragua and Panama. It is only slightly smaller than the population of three other independent States, Honduras, the Lebanon and Paraguay. Since there are ten small countries with populations of less than 1� million each, there can be no justification for saying that Singapore alone, among these ten, is incapable of becoming an independent country.' And at page 23: `These facts show that Singapore cannot be regarded as too small to become an independent State. Effectively ... it will have a larger revenue than many of the 54 States Members of the United Nations whose revenues appear superficially to be larger.' Sir, that was the stand with which the P.A.P. fully agreed in 1956. Now we are told that the P.A.P. totally rejects the idea of an independent Singapore and has rejected it ever since the Party was formed. It considers an independent Singapore a fantasy. Mr Speaker, Sir, whether fantasy or not, let us recognise that the struggle for an independent Singapore is not derogatory but complementary to the struggle for merger. The nearer we come to independence, the greater is the urge on the part of the Federation to merge with the people of Singapore. That has been to some extent, Mr Speaker, proved in the recent Anson by-election. Merdeka and merger were dead for two years. Everytime the issue was opened, you know the result. The Anson by-election came in the offing, and it was known that the issue of independence would be the crucial focal issue of Anson. It was then, and then only, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister of the Federation saw fit to make friendly noises about possible closer political and economic relations with Singapore. Let us recognise that if we do not offer the people an alternative to a merger, which we cannot compel, we are leaving them hanging in mid-air. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is well and good to say, "1963, merger with the Federation." I am prepared to accept that, and I believe the people of Singapore are also prepared to accept that. But what if you cannot achieve merger by 1963? What then? The Hon. the Prime Minister says, "We will throw up our hand and tell the British to take over." Mr Speaker, surely that is a sterile approach. We cannot offer our vital youth who are growing up, who seek their self-respect, a possibility which is not even a probability, and then the alternative - British rule. I say that we can and we should all of us honestly and sincerely seek, concurrently with our efforts for merger, an independent Singapore, a Singapore that is more viable, as I have just indicated to you, than many States which are independent today. Singapore can and will, if necessary. "go it alone". Is that not preferable to throwing up your hand as a bankrupt and putting it in the laps of the British? Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. does not accept the concept of independence preferably with, if necessary without, the Federation because it fears the loss of power for itself. I say: recognise that the people around us seek freedom. They seek self-respect as a plant seeks air and light. We cannot deny this to them. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister three days ago in his letter in reply to the Prime Minister stated that the call for the resignation of the Prime Minister was made to confuse the people over the vital issue of merger with the Federation. Mr Speaker, it was I who made that call. I think I have made my stand on merger clear and there can be no confusion. The call for the resignation of the Prime Minister is a call from the people of Singapore for the end of an overpowering personality who does not permit democratic play, nor has he respect for the democratic principles or the will of the people. It is not, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I know the Deputy Prime Minister, that I am a friend of the Deputy Prime Minister who is so terrified of me that he does not recognise me when he sees me. The truth of it is that, were the Prime Minister to resign, at least that would to some extent assuage the resentment of the people to this Government and at least give an opportunity to this Party m any members of whom I have no doubt are dedicated, sincere and honest and seek the welfare of Singapore - to reorientate itself, to reconsider its position without the presence of a man who feels that reorientation, the recognition of a mistake, is in itself a dreadful thing, and that consistency even in foolishness is preferable to the wisdom learned from mistakes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with regret in this my very first speech to this House that I should ask the Asembly to take cognizance of a motion that is unworthy. Mr Speaker, if it had come from the Jaga Kreta Government, we would have grown accustomed to that kind of conduct. But in the light of the distinction in the stature of the people concerned, the people of Singapore were entitled and are entitled to expect greater integrity and sincerity and acceptance of the public will. This motion before the House, more perhaps than any other act of the Government, displays - if it is not deemed an unparliamentary phrase, Mr Speaker - a shabby approach to government, unworthy of the people of Singapore. And if this motion is persisted in, then I hope the conscience of the Backbenchers, independent human beings themselves, would make them vote against this motion even if it means fresh elections. I do not want a fresh election, having come through five weeks of it! Nor am I unconscious that the alternative to this Government is at present unformed. But I say it is an unhealthy thing for any government to consider itself indispensable, for any government to act in such a fashion - consciously to seek to bring confusion and throw dust in the eyes of the people, create bogies and non-existent bogies in order to frighten them so that they should be supported. I see the Hon. the Minister for Finance is very anxious to take the Floor. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I will not keep him on the leash any longer. 6.18 p.m.

As I sweated through that marathon performance of the Member for Anson, I was just wondering whether his long absence from this Chamber has so increased his powers for lengthy oratory that at the first opportunity he would deliver such a long oration to the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, as he went on and on repeating many of his points several times, I thought perhaps after our defeat in Anson, this was the punishment. Sir, he has raised a number of points and I have no doubt my colleagues concerned will answer them at the appropriate time. But I listened with interest to his remarks on what he termed the bogey of Communism which has been raised in the Prime Minister's speech. Sir, the Member for Anson was at one time the Chief Minister of Singapore. When he was at the helm, he was faced with difficult problems. There were riots and the expansion of unions by operators on behalf of the Malayan Communist Party. So much so, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when he went to London in April 1956, he had occasion to address a meeting of Malayan students in London, after which I met him. At that time, Mr Speaker, Sir, the then Chief Minister did not assume the mantle of a great Liberal, the opposer of all attempts to make use of the Communist smear in order to liquidate one's political opponents. What he said at the students' union would be on record, and perhaps one of these days we may be able to publish the minutes of that meeting. But after the meeting, he met me and spoke to me in earnest, almost desperate, terms. He said, "Though you are a close friend of Lee Kuan Yew, do you know that he is giving legal cover to the Communists so that they can expand their influence in Singapore, in the unions, in the students' associations, cultural bodies? And that Lee Kuan Yew is using his considerable skill as a lawyer to give Communist operators the legal protection that they need for the consolidation and expansion of their Party?" And he begged of me to persuade my friend to disavow his presence so that he, as Chief Minister, could take action against them. Sir, that is a long cry from the present stand of the Member for Anson. Indeed, I might say that the circle has made a complete turn. I will come back to this subject in due course. I now turn to the comments from the two Government Parliamentary Secretaries on the absence of what they term "intra-party democracy", the allegedly dictatorial methods of the Party leadership, and the centralisation of power and decision-making in a small body of the leadership. Sir, much of what they say is already familiar to this House. In fact, a stronger case had already been made by the Member for Hong Lim who gave more examples and spoke with even greater heat and passion because he himself had been the object of disciplinary action taken by the Party under its Constitution. The Member for Hong Lim roundly condemned the absence of party democracy in the P.A.P. So when he was expelled, he formed a new party, whose name I believe is the United People's Party. Sir, he has applied for registration and we are therefore provided with a copy of his Party Constitution. Members will be amazed to know that the Constitution of that Party is practically identical with that of the P.A.P., and that, in so far as the clauses differ from the P.A.P., it is to strengthen and centralise power in their Central Executive Committee. So, Mr Speaker. Sir, let us not be deceived by all this humbug.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Point of order?

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, Is it proper for a Minister to refer to confidential communications sent in by a political Party in open assembly?

That is not a point of order for me. Dr Goh.

Sir, that document is not confidential. In the course of events, that document will be available to anyone who presumably wants to apply for membership. But to carry on, Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not need any lectures on democratic procedures from persons who are unable to respect the elementary decencies and loyalties which are expected of gentlemen. It is open to them, if they so violently disagree with the way in which party affairs are conducted, to leave the Party, form a new one, a more democratic Party, one hopes, and avoid the example of their predecessors. Far from carrying out the conclusions to which his criticisms of party organisation would lead, the Member for Hong Lim has, in fact, followed in almost identical terms the structure and organisation of the Party which he has condemned. Sir, why is it necessary for political Parties in Singapore to have constitutions which are so severely centralised? The Member for Hong Lim is no chicken. He has been with us for many years. He knows what the issues are. He has seen Pandora's Box opened and on one occasion he has been stung by the bees that came out of that box. To understand why political Parties organised by people who have gone through this phase of Singapore's political development adopt certain safeguards within the constitution, I therefore say that it is to prevent their Party from being captured by forces who owe no loyalty to the Party. This brings us, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the central theme developed in the speech of the Prime Minister. It is now no longer possible for us in the P.A.P. to gloss over the differences between the Communists and ourselves. There was a time when we were colleagues in the anti-colonial struggle, and the ordinary dictates of decency demand of us that we should give to those who are fighting as comrades-in-arms the maximum cover and protection that we could afford. But now the parting of ways has taken place. We owe them no obligation, for it is they who took the initiative in forcing this break. Sir, I want to develop the theme which the Prime Minister has described in his speech, and that is the analysis of events in the last few weeks whereby the British intervened on the political stage in Singapore to bring about certain results which they thought would be advantageous to them. It has been our habit to heap all kinds of abuse upon the colonialists. They are represented as cruel, oppressive, unjust, inhuman, rapacious, and so on and so forth. But there is one attribute of the British imperialists to which inadequate attention had been paid. And this is their cunning and their skill and experience in manipulating men to their own advantage. The great scheme of theirs which the Prime Minister had revealed emphasises that we must never under-estimate our adversary, particularly his capacity for diabolical scheming. The scheme has been set on foot only during the last few months and shows that it has not only been conceived by a master-mind but that it has been executed with consummate skill and precision. Sir, I want to give some details of this plot and the way it was carried out and its effect on a narrow sector of the political stage. I want to describe in some detail what has happened, when events took their course, among a group of P.A.P. leaders in the Assembly. More specifically, I want to refer to the revolt of the eight Assemblymen led by the Member for Queenstown. An hon. Member: Is he still the Parliamentary Secretary?

Order. May I ask the same question? Is the Member for Queenstown still a Parliamentary Secretary? If he is, he must be referred to as the Parliamentary Secretary.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr Speaker, Sir, yes. But let me first recapitulate the principal tactical lines of the operation which the British had launched. As the Prime Minister said, one of the main objectives is to encourage the Communists and their supporters to break away from the P.A.P. and attack it both from outside and from within. In order to achieve this objective, it is vital that the British should convince the Communists of two points, otherwise no action ensues. First, that the British would convince the Communists that it would allow a pro-Communist or even a Communist government to take charge of Singapore provided the Communists agree not to disturb their military bases. For so long as the Communists believe that they are in peril of repressive action by the British, they will continue, as they had done in the past, to hide behind the P.A.P. They cannot be persuaded to destroy the P.A.P. unless their fear of British repressive action is dispelled. The British must, therefore, convince the Communists that so far as the British are concerned, the Communists stand in no danger of suppression by force. They must next convince the Communists that the plan for a greater merger is ready for immediate implementation. For the Communists understand that with internal security in the hands of Tengku Abdul Rahman's Government, they stand in great danger of suppression by the Federation Government. Once the Communists are convinced that merger or super merger is around the corner, they will jump like prawns in hot water. For their own survival, they must take all action to wreck the scheme. And to do so, they must mount an assault on the P.A.P. to capture it if possible, to destroy it if not. The first condition, that is, the British assurance that they are quite safe, therefore, serves to remove any inhibitions the Communists would have in openly attacking the P.A.P. The second condition, that is, expectation of early merger, provides them with the urgent, indeed dire, necessity to do so. I want to tell the House how admirably the British had succeeded in convincing the Communists on these two points and how the Communists in turn have sought to manipulate some of the weaker brethren in the P.A.P. to open fire on their colleagues even to the extent of treachery and betrayal. I had been observing the conduct and opinions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs for a very long time. It was clear to me that for some time he was advocating the policy of a united front with the Communists on their own terms, and accordingly I held a number of discussions to find out what his real intentions were and whether he fully understood the consequences of the policy he was advocating. Sir, I have known the Parliamentary Secretary as a personal friend for a great number of years. In fact, our friendship began over the chess board, and he is a player of no mean ability. You can judge a man's character by his style of play. Chess players are of many kinds. Some persons are cautious and calculating by nature, and they play the game to obtain long-term strategic advantages. Other players are bold and prefer complications and combinations on the chess board to get quick results. Some again are bold to the point of recklessness so that they readily embark on what chess players call speculative moves. These involve the taking of great risks without proper calculations in the hope of achieving early and spectacular victory. If the moves come off, the adversary is soon overwhelmed. If they do not come off, the game is lost with equal rapidity. I have never known the Parliamentary Secretary to lack courage in making speculative moves on the chess board. And so it is that this man has initiated, on the political chess board, moves which I can only describe as speculative in the extreme, the consequences of which to himself and to the country he has not properly calculated. When you lose at chess, you will replace the pieces and you play a new game. But in the affairs of the country, you do not replace pieces and play a new game after you have lost. You are playing not only with your own lives but with the lives of other men and women and their families, and you take the consequences. Let me now describe what took place in the discussions between the Parliamentary Secretary and myself during quite a number of sessions I had with him. He was extremely depressed after our defeat at Hong Lim. He claimed that the Party had completely lost the confidence of the people. He enumerated a long list of errors which we have made and demanded that they be rectified. There was no difficulty in getting agreement on these points. Some of them I conceded to him, and with regard to the others he accepted my point of view. But on one point we could not agree, and that is that the Parliamentary Secretary declared that the salvation of the P.A.P. lies in full and open co-operation with the Communists. Sir, I am not mincing my words here.

That is not true.

Come on!

In our discussions that we had, we did not use vague terms such as "extreme Left" or "Leftist socialists". We were talking about the Communists and both he and I understood what we meant. I posed to him the question whether he had understood the risk involved in such a course of action. I said to him, "If you are a Communist and act as one, you have no cause to regret should any ill consequences befall you. You understand the ideology; you are dedicated to the cause, and you are prepared for the sacrifices. But if you are not a Communist and try to toe their line, then you have only yourself to blame if events overwhelm you." Now, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary is no Communist. He does not even understand the most elementary tenets of Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, a great deal of his behaviour and activity rather suggest to me the conduct of a foolish virgin who has entered into a brothel area and proclaimed the brotherhood of men. Why did he want to embark on this hazardous course? He wants mass popularity for the Party and for himself which he thinks only the Communists can provide. I repeatedly asked him whether or not he had calculated the consequences. Everybody knows the importance of Singapore as a British military base. It holds a pivotal position in the defence system of the British in South-East Asia. I asked him if he imagined that the British would refrain from using force to crush any Communist or pro-Communist movement which threatens their security, as must be the case. For Communism is a world force, and every local Communist movement is geared to the world Communist revolution. These are simple basic axioms from which any political analysis must proceed. The Parliamentary Secretary came out with a light-hearted reply that, in his view, the British will not use force on the Communists because he knew the Communists have decided not to use force on the British. In fact, the Communists, he said, are not in a position in Singapore to use armed revolution.

Do not twist.

And accordingly they are prepared to accept the retention of British bases on the island and there is therefore no reason for the British to suppress them. Sir, I have spent a long time with the Parliamentary Secretary to convince him of the error of his assumption. But I could not move him from that position. It is clear that the British had attained their first objective. They had convinced the Communists that it is safe for them to proceed, and the Communists in turn have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary that no ill consequences would follow his throwing in his lot with them. On the contrary, he would get the advantage of mass popularity and the support of their mass organisations in Singapore. And in the end, Sir, a delectable prize to win - the Premiership of Singapore! Thus it was that the Communists have secured an important foothold in the P.A.P. leadership from which they could attack the Party from within. This, it should be noted, Sir, is entirely in accordance with British plans and expectations - the destruction of the P.A.P. by the Communists in the first phase so as to leave them unencumbered freedom of action to deal with the Communists in the final round. The second element of the British move to lure the Communists into open conflict with the P.A.P. is to convince them of the imminence of super merger. The Prime Minister has described the various open moves which the British had made to bring about this state of mind among the Communist open leadership - visits of High Commissioners and generals, trips to London by the noble Lord and so on. I now want to discuss the effects on some of the P.A.P. members once the Communists themselves have been brought into this state of mind. Many members, some in high positions in the Party hierarchy, continually call upon the Ministers to take them into their confidence and reveal the details of this super merger. Indeed at this very meeting of the Assembly, Members have heard from another Parliamentary Secretary the appeal for the revelation of details of this great scheme. So convinced were they that some evil plot has been hatched to fix the Communists that they never fully believed our reply that we do not know the details, for the simple reason that a super merger was no more than a general proposition put forth by political leaders in various countries in this area. The stage has not even been reached where the Governments concerned have even begun preliminary discussions. The success of the British in deceiving the Communists has now been complete. But how did they pull off this spectacular psychological coup? We know the broad outlines. We know some of the details, the goings-on between the Communist supporters and sympathisers and the U.K. Commission. The lunches, dinners and private discussions and cocktail parties which they had. For the British to have pulled off this master-stroke, which can only be done through hints, suggestions and innuendoes, certain arrangements are necessary for success. Reviewing events in the recent past, and piecing together the information that we have about the discussions between the lion and the bear, I am irresistibly drawn to certain conclusions. Mr Lim Ching Siong, in a Press statement yesterday, warned his followers against agents provocateurs who, he alleged, had been planted by the wicked P.A.P. Government to create disturbances in the trade unions. This allegation is as stupid as it is unfounded. But that is not the point. The point I am making is that Mr Lim Ching Siong should, at the beginning of this whole exercise, have taken heed of his own warning himself and guard against agents provocateurs whom the British had planted in his midst. The whole exercise of convincing the Communists of these two fundamental points - first, that they could operate with safety even to the extent of forming their own government, and second, that super merger is around the corner - has been achieved in the course of a few brief months. To bring about the desired state of mind among the top Communist leaders, it is essential to the British that they should be able to use, for their purposes, men in whom the Communists have reposed confidence and upon whom they rely to give an evaluation of British intentions. The top decision-makers among the Communists are all Chinese educated. They cannot be fully sure of their own interpretation of what the British say or do, and they must therefore seek the opinion and advice of those who know British minds better. Mr Lim Ching Siong should now review the interpretations which his English-educated comrades have made to him on British policy as expounded in their discussions with the British. He will then find a pattern emerging of how he was slowly but surely brought to the position where he fell for the lure that was offered and was finally played for the sucker. From this pattern, he can draw his own conclusions. None of us want traitors in our midst, and no traitor is more reprehensible than one who works for the imperialists. They have done the Communists a great deal of harm. They have also inflicted injuries on the P.A.P. We, the P.A.P., and the Communists, have a common interest in their eradication. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me wind up with a few remarks about the performers in the great drama that is unfolding itself before our eyes. First, there are the men who decide the course of events. These are the men who understand the reality of power as distinct from the illusion and the sensation of power. They are the British, the Communists and ourselves in the P.A.P. who are responsible for making ultimate decisions. All these three understand that, as the famous dictum of Mao Tse-tung puts it, "power comes out of the barrel of the gun". Mao Tse-tung went on further to say that every good Communist must understand this basic proposition. Unfortunately for the Communists in Singapore, they suffered a temporary lapse during which they overlooked Mao's advice and allowed themselves to be beguiled by those who held the gun. These are the principal actors. Then, among the supporting cast, you find a variety of types. This is a curious thing in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir. When great and momentous events are taking place, for no rhyme or reason, clowns appear on the political stage, to the merriment and exhilaration of all around, only to confuse the picture and prevent the proper clarification of events. But there are earnest and sincere people in this supporting cast who lack experience and breadth and depth of knowledge. As a result, some of them have allowed themselves to stray away from the path of rectitude. Then again there are those who are less honest and sincere. They are driven by ambition and lust for power which regrettably is not matched by sagacity of judgment. Whatever else happens in the future, these are the persons that must meet with disaster because they are unable themselves to see the pitfalls and traps that lie ahead and they are unwilling to accept the advice of wiser and more experienced men. Sir, the last act of this drama has yet to be played. For our part, we can say that our minds have penetrated beyond external and superficial manifestations into the roots of the power situation. We have accordingly made our preparations for each and every eventuality that may arise. 6.58 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wonder very much why a Government which has 39 seats can ask the Assembly to give a confidence vote to it. The fact that it has 39 seats very clearly tells the Government that its vote of confidence rests with these 39 seats. It also rests with the 51 branches of the P.A.P. Why does the Government not want to seek confidence from the Party and the Assemblymen instead of seeking it from the Opposition? Does it mean that the Opposition's vote can be more trusted? Whether there is confidence or not, it is a matter to be considered within the Party. Treating the Party's internal affairs as political issues in the Assembly may perhaps be permissible, but then the consequences will be very miserable and deplorable. Intra-party disputes must be dealt with by Party members. In this particular case, the dispute arose because there was lack of democracy in the Party and because the leadership had deviated from the correct path. There was no democracy. Because of this, the eight Assemblymen on the Government side and the three Political Secretaries wanted to rectify the wrong path taken by the Party leadership. The intra-party struggle is a very simple and common affair, but the Party leadership have disregarded our request. They have divided us and accused us of being Communists and that they must necessarily be democratic Leftists. I regard this accusation as an act of the colonialists or their agents. It is not surprising that they have adopted this tactic of slandering us. But the most surprising thing is that the so-called democratic people can resort to reactionary activities. They have always tried to treat those who disagree with them as questionable people. This attitude of not willing or refusing to accept criticism will not be good for the political future of the people concerned. It will not realise the long-term objectives of the Party. The defeat of the Party in the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections was blamed on the extreme Left-wing elements, but, in fact, this was due to the Party leadership having deviated from the correct political path. They want to confuse the vision of the people. They want to come to terms with the Right-wing and pro-colonial elements. This action has to be contained. In the correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, there is mention of the Prime Minister wanting to resign. Three points were mentioned in the correspondence. One point was that the Government will have to take some unpleasant action in the interest of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, there should be pleasant action for the majority of the people. How can it not be so? The unpleasant action is to be carried out for the sake of the colonialists. The correspondence goes on to say that the three Political Secretaries and eight Assemblymen are guilty of open rebellion and treachery. I do not exactly know what is meant by "treachery". Is it treachery to ask the Party to rectify the wrong path taken? Can this be construed as treachery? In the Prime Minister's letter, he says that he always believes in collective leadership. We have taken part in affairs relating to government and we have also had business dealings with the Party. In the course of all this, I have never witnessed this collective leadership. I have only heard of it. 7.06 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday morning I received your letter pointing out that it had been represented to you by the Leader of the House that the public interest required that the Assembly should sit today. At the same time, I received short notice by the Prime Minister about the motion, "That this House expresses its confidence in the Government." The Assembly was adjourned only one day before Anson Polling Day. That sitting was supposed to be the last sitting of the Session. Today the Chinese Press printed news of this special sitting. The convening of this special sitting today will stimulate the minds of those who are concerned with politics. To those who are more sensitive, this will appear like an impending thunderstorm. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very much puzzled at this motion. I do not understand its purpose, for the Party in power still has 39 seats. Our position in the Assembly is very secure indeed and cannot be shakened by the Opposition. Could it be because the Four-Party Alliance candidate has asked our Ministers to resign? Or could it be due to the fact that the Member for Anson has challenged us? If the answer is yes to each of these two questions, then there is no necessity to introduce this motion here or to ask Opposition Members to state their confidence in the Government. This is an impossible situation. It is clear that the 39 Assemblymen sitting on this side of the House can outvote the Opposition. The true picture is very clear. The introduction of this motion is really because of intra-party disputes. Our conflicts should be resolved within the Party instead of raising this motion in the Assembly, which is inappropriate and a mistake. I earnestly ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his motion and let the issue be decided by the highest authorities of the Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, in raising the motion, the Prime Minister gave an analysis of the political situation in Singapore and asked the Assembly to express its confidence in the Government. But now let us think coolly and objectively about the whole situation. Its causes and results. This is necessary and correct. If in our hurry to tackle the problem we are not able to find the core of the problem, then this will be a mistake. Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party was founded in 1954 on the basis of anti-colonialism through constitutional struggle so as to bring about a united and socialist Malaya. Tens of thousands of members and I took part in this struggle. After many crises, we won 43 seats in this Assembly with the support of the people of Singapore, and we were able to form the first internal self-governing State. This unsurpassed victory was the product of a struggle lasting five years. Unfortunately, dissensions and provocations among comrades in the Party led to the expulsion of the former Minister for National Development. As a result of the Anson by-election, the People's Action Party has now only 39 seats in this Assembly. As a loyal member of the Party, I have seen the Party's prestige drop in the eyes of the people and its political objectives becoming more and more vague. Therefore, I think we should have the right to air our views constructively. It is our duty to criticise and engage in self-criticism. Being a socialist political Party based on collective leadership, it is necessary that questions in principle are submitted to a bigger organisation for discussion and decision. Eight Assemblymen wrote to the Party Central Executive Committee asking the leadership to convene a meeting of the 51 P.A.P. Branches to discuss the problems facing the socialist movement in Malaya, especially the Greater Malaysia scheme propounded by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman. This proposal for a merger is now bigger in scope than the one sought by the People's Action Party. In principle, this scheme merits our support and discussion. But, unfortunately, this scheme was made public by Mr Devan Nair on behalf of the Central Executive Committee. This is heart-breaking and unpleasant. Mr Speaker, Sir, two days before the letter was published, the results of the Anson by-election were announced, and our People's Action Party candidate, comrade Awang, lost to Mr Marshall by 500-odd votes. That is the important reason why the Government have introduced a motion seeking a vote of confidence in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have read from the newspapers yesterday of a letter from the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. to the Party's Chairman, and his reply. This highly exciting and dramatic news stunned the whole political arena in Singapore. The last paragraph of the letter from the Secretary-General reads: `I am quite prepared to assume leadership of the government on behalf of the party provided it is the clear wish of the party executive and of the Assemblymen who will have to follow us into battle.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Party's Chairman for his act of convening a special Party meeting for Assemblymen, but the eight Assemblymen were not invited to that meeting. After a report by the Chairman, the Assemblymen were asked to give their opinions. At the same time, he requested all the Assemblymen to sign a letter to the Central Executive Committee. The result of the dispute was that five Assemblymen, including myself, refused to sign the letter. At that time we said that we would submit our memorandum to the Central Executive Committee to clarify our views. Had we signed that letter, it would not have been necessary for us to meet here today. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why we did not sign that letter was that we take objection to the analysis contained in the letter of the Secretary-General. We are not manipulated or influenced by anybody. What we are concerned with are the Party's fundamental principles and its long-term objectives and their gradual implementation. We are not interested in personal fame, status and wealth. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not wish to be revolutionary heroes, nor do we wish to be the nation's enemies. We only wish to be loyal members of the People's Action Party. We want to be ordinary persons. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the democratic system means the invention of all sorts of adjectives to describe all those who do not agree, then this will not be convincing to us. If the one man one vote system is used to bring intra-party matters to the Assembly, then the result is not conceivable. Here, I honestly and sincerely hope the Prime Minister will withdraw his motion. 7.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said during the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech in August 1960, when blank fall out, honest men will come into their own. I have not used the word "rogues" because I know that honourable men are not rogues. They are honourable men who have been elected by the people of Singapore to look after the destinies of the people of Singapore. Sir, in June 1959 when the P.A.P. scored, according to them, a very overwhelming victory of 43 seats in an Assembly of 51, although they polled only 54 per cent of the total votes cast, they came to the Assembly dressed in pure white and claimed that they who came in pure white were a good, clean, honest Government. Today they are no longer in pure white. I do not know. After two years of it there must have been a lot of stain that has stuck, so much so that we find even Parliamentary Secretaries who are "Assistant Ministers" in the Cabinet coming out now in this Assembly telling the Prime Minister where he was wrong, calling him names which we called him for the last two years - that the P.A.P. Government was nothing but a dictatorial Government, that the P.A.P. leaders were nothing but arrogant leaders. These charges were denied from that side of the House. But today, Sir, from the mouths of their own Parliamentary Secretaries, they say that their leaders are arrogant. They say that their leaders are dictatorial. This is indeed, Sir, a very pathetic day for the leadership of the P.A.P. So when they lost the Anson by-election, it was left to the defeated P.A.P. candidate, the President of the T.U.C., to say, "That's all right. It was not a bad defeat. We only lost by a small majority. We are not worried. We will remain in office." That was Sunday. On Monday, the Prime Minister said, "We carry on." On Tuesday, the Prime Minister's side of the T.U.C. said that the other side of the T.U.C. which was not with the Prime Minister is all wrong and is trying to stab the P.A.P. leadership in the back. And on Wednesday we are treated to the sight of the Prime Minister exchanging letters with the Deputy Prime Minister, giving full publicity to "Dear comrade" here and "Dear comrade" there. So we thought that everything was all right. It would appear that they wanted to carry on. All right, if they want to carry on, let them carry on. We were waiting for the time when the Leader of the House would inform you, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the next sitting of this Assembly. Suddenly we had to rely on that P.A.P. Government political propaganda machine, Radio Singapore, to say that the Prime Minister had tendered his resignation and that the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. had told him to carry on - "Don't worry. You've done a good job." And later on in the evening we were told that there was going to be a special sitting of this House in the interests of the public. And today, after having listened to the Prime Minister when he moved the motion standing in his name, I must say that we see nothing of such an urgent character that this Assembly should be summoned at such short notice, thereby depriving the Opposition of the time needed to submit questions and motions that we have in mind and plan to do as soon as this Assembly is called for a new sitting. Sir, it is typical of the Prime Minister to spend about one hour and twenty-two minutes, if I have got it right, telling us sweet nothing, concocting a story that there is a British lion and a Communist bear, and saying. "Watch it, boys! These two are plotting against the P.A.P. and if the P.A.P. were to fall into the trap, then goodbye Singapore! The P.A.P. is the only saviour of Singapore." Is it necessary for them to cook up such a story? Sir, we have been alive to the situation, and even Members on the other side must have been going round with their eyes and ears open; and wherever we went and if it was a Britisher we met, he would tell us, "Please, Lee Kuan Yew deserves every help." And even today before we came, we were told that it would be a good thing if we could support the great Lee Kuan Yew. And then we had the British lion and the Communist bear. Perhaps, Sir, the great Prime Minister has adopted the practice of his Communist comrades whereby it is better for someone to start a smear campaign and say. "Now, even the Communists are becoming colonial stooges and therefore we will have delivered the first blow. The Communists are now becoming colonial stooges. We, the P.A.P., are anti-colonialists." Sir, they have learned quite a lot during the two years they have been associating with what they now term the Communist Left. In August last year when the Prime Minister moved a motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, he gave us, for the first time, an indication of the buildup of Communist forces in Singapore. He said that for the past 14 months - that was in August 1960 - Communist forces had been building up in the trade union field. He tried to frighten the Opposition by saying that unless we behaved or unless we worked with the P.A.P., that would be the end of Singapore. But it was significant, Sir, that he denied what I said to him at that time, that there were Communist sympathisers, activists or what have you in the P.A.P. He stood up and denied it. He said, "There is no such thing. There are no Communist sympathisers and activists in the P.A.P." And today there is this secret document which he has found it necessary to release saying that Lim Ching Siong is a Communist-front man! Sir, they always say what they mean, and they mean what they say. Perhaps in this particular instance, what they meant to say was not what they said to mean. Sir, they put it to us whether we wanted a general election. We can say to them, we will meet them any time, anywhere. The people of Singapore are fed up with their mishandling. For the past two years they have brought nothing but misery to the people of Singapore. Unemployment has increased to such an extent that it is almost impossible of solution. On the one hand, they have a Minister for Finance saying that we must have industrialisation. We must have a development plan and try our best to encourage the inflow of foreign capital. But on the other hand, there is another Minister who says, "I will use the P.P.S.O. on you if you do not behave. I will see to it that your entry visas will not be extended if you do not behave." That is the kind of government we have been having for the past two years. Sir, I really do not know what they are asking us to vote on. If it is a vote of confidence on what they have done about their policies for the past two years, I can say to them, in no uncertain terms, that we have no confidence in the Government. If it is to tell us, "Boys, there is this Communist threat coming, but you know that unless we have your confidence we are not going to look after the interest of Singapore," then say it in plain language. Do not use language that we do not understand. Is the Government prepared to carry on to meet the threat if there is this threat, to look after the interest of Singapore, to do acts which may be unpalatable, which may be described as undemocratic but doing them as a Government in the interest of the people of Singapore, above party politics, above everything, guided by the one desire to serve as they have been elected to serve? If we heard aright, the Prime Minister said, "As soon as there is this trouble coming up, we abdicate." Sir, what is the use of our giving a vote of confidence to a Government which is going to abdicate immediately there is trouble, and which is bringing all this trouble? I said in August 1960 that if they were sincere in their desire to look after the interest of the people of Singapore, then they should not try to play double politics. To the Communists, they say one thing; to the British they say another. They denied that there had been such things. But now it is openly admitted that Lim Ching Siong and his crowd belong to the Communist Left. And these Communist Left people have been told many a time by the leadership of the P.A.P., "Boys, if you behave, we might see that your detainees, your comrades, are released. But if you do not behave, we cannot do it. If you do not behave, Jamit Singh and company and even I think T. T. Rajah will not be given their citizenship. But if you behave, we will do it." To the British they say, "Do not worry. We are not going to release these people, you know. But allow us to use the Internal Security Council as a front." That is the kind of double talk they have been making. That is the thing that accounted for Lim Ching Siong standing up on the platform and accusing the Federation Prime Minister. The Federation Prime Minister - the Government of the Federation of Malaya - with a decisive vote in internal security, for the continued detention of the detainees. Sir, they claimed they were a responsible Government. It they were a responsible Government, then they should accept full responsibility for internal security. Why is it when they are pressed today we are told that another 18 would be released? Just in order to show that if they really wanted to do it, they could have done it. Now they know that when they cannot have any more cover, they say they will do it within a period of time. But before doing that, they cooked up a story of the British lion and the Communist bear. I do not know how they cooked up that story. Perhaps the Prime Minister, ever since the trouble he had last year with his ex-colleague, the ex-Minister for National Development, the ex-Mayor of the City Council, was a little upset. Every little bit that he did after that trouble was a miscalculation. They lost in Hong Lim. They said they were going to resign. They would not resign. They said they were going to resign if they lost Anson. They were asking for our vote of confidence. Sir, even before Nomination Day on June the 9th. I think an hon. Back-bencher of the Government, the hon. Member for Telok Blangah, addressed the Kerala Association and said, as a Back-bencher, "If we lose in Anson, the Government will resign." A Back-bencher speaking on behalf of the Government! There was no contradiction. The Government did not issue any statement to contradict that. The Government allowed it to go through. The Government lost in Anson and it is now asking for a vote of confidence. And it was a Back-bencher, their own Parliamentary Secretary, who said today that this vote of confidence is nothing but party politics. And we are asked to come here to help them out of their difficulty inside the Party. Why should we? If that is the intention, we can say this to them here, we are going to vote against the motion. But if it is the intention of the Government to ask for a vote of confidence to strengthen their stand in order to discharge their duty to the people of Singapore in so far as security and welfare are concerned, then we will give them that vote of confidence. But they must assure us in no uncertain terms that that is the intention. If there is any other intention, then the vote is no. They now find that the three Political Secretaries stabbed them in the back. But in August 1960 1 told them - I do not like to quote because it is rather long - I told them: "I call upon them that if they really want to meet the threat which the Prime Minister himself has stated in no uncertain terms, they must be firm and get rid of the Political Secretaries whom they have found to be disloyal." The Prime Minister laughed at me. He used language which could be boiled down to mean, "You are teaching your grandmother to suck eggs." And then I told them that if they wanted to continue and meet this threat and get the support of each and everyone, not only in the Assembly but in the country, they must forget their arrogance. Learn to be humble, because there is greatness in humility and no greatness in greatness itself. He laughed. He jeered. Today they come for a vote, asking the Opposition to vote with them. Even their Back-benchers say it is laughable for the Government, with 39 seats, having to call on the assistance of the Opposition to see that they remain in power. They say that these Political Secretaries stabbed them in the back. But they have not told us whether these Political Secretaries have been sacked. They are still being paid. Until they have been sacked, they are still being paid $1,100 a month out of public funds. And yet they are a good, clean, honest government, making use of public funds to pay traitors, according to them. Is it right? Is it good, clean, honest that they should keep on paying $1,100 a month to each of the three Political Secretaries whom they now describe as having stabbed them in the back? Of course, there are a lot of other things that have been going on. Now since it is clear from the speeches of the Government Back-benchers that this vote that the Prime Minister is moving is nothing but an attempt by the Government to get the Opposition involved in their party politics, I do not think we need prolong this debate. But there is something to which I must reply. Sir. The hon. Member for Anson who has been away for the past five years has come back to us. I extend to him a very warm welcome. But it would appear, Sir, that he comes back to us still with a fixation that we let Singapore down. Still criticising the Constitution, saying how bad it was. It would have been better if he had got it. There had been a very lengthy debate at that time, Sir, I would not like to waste the time of this Assembly, but I do say this, and I repeat it. That what was brought back from London was just accepting what he had accepted, and succeeding where he had failed in getting a Malayan-born representative of the Queen, in getting a representative of the Federation Government to participate in this Internal Security Council. There was another thing he had in mind. He was prepared to accept a Defence and Security Council under the Constitution offered to him with the British as Chairman, and this Defence and Security Council would have a right to regulate the internal security of Singapore by Orders-in-Council. Let me not fall into the habit of the Member for Anson who would, on every occasion, like to say everything he can about me. So let us leave it at that. Let us not see an Opposition quarrelling with the Opposition when the government of the day is just waiting for a decision from the Opposition whether they should continue or not continue in office. We say this in no uncertain terms. That if it is a vote for them to take action against their own Party members, then it is nothing but party politics, and we will vote against it. But if it is for the security of the country, the Prime Minister will have to stand up and show us in no uncertain terms that that is what he intends to do - that he intends to serve the people and to run the Government in the best interest of the people of Singapore, irrespective of any action which he may be forced to take against his comrades and ex-comrades. There is one point that was brought up in the debate just now, Sir, that Lim Ching Siong was a great man and that it was a very cruel act on the part of the previous Government to have arrested him. Let me remind this House that Lim Ching Siong was arrested on the premises of the Singapore Shop and Factory Workers Union which was the centre of the riot disturbance. There were knives, brass bars, iron bars, wooden bars, acid bottles and Communist literature, the full plan of campaign of how to overthrow the Government, there. If that kind of activity is going to qualify a person as a great hero, all I can say is I feel sorry for those people who have such ideas of such people. 7.46 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, now we can see from our friends opposite that they are playing a lot of tricks and games here. We can see what kind of games they are playing. We can see they have done some dirty things to the people in the past-

Order. I think the hon. Member must be very careful of the expression he is using. I do not know whether he is being translated correctly, but he accuses, I think, the Member for Cairnhill and hon. Members opposite of doing dirty things. That, in my view, is unparliamentary and should not be said.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. The Party of the Member opposite is said to be a "rojak party". He claimed his Party to be a Leftist Party. At that time the people supported him to become the first government. He used to pretend to be progressive and then arrested the unionists. When he saw our motion here he was very glad to stand up and say that if this motion was for the security of the people of Singapore, then he would vote for it. Mr Speaker, here I will take part in discussing this matter. It is very regretful for me to say this - the Government has 39 Members and the Opposition has only 12 Members. So with 12 Members how can they vote against the 39 Members? How can they compete with us 39 Members? It is unwise for them to do so. Therefore, by moving this motion, our Prime Minister is very childish and puerile. It would be better for us to take this motion to the 51 Branches of the Party and also to the Central Executive Committee and also the paid officials of the Party in order to discuss it. We can discuss the wrong attitude of the leadership. Our Party prestige and position will then be restored. Then we can pursue our anti-colonialist struggle. Mr Speaker, Sir, the eight Assemblymen have jointly written a letter to the Party Executive Committee asking them to convene a joint session between the Central Executive Committee and the 51 Branches. In their reply, they said this could be done later on. On the other hand, the Party leadership sent one of their agents to the forum. From this, it can be proved that there is no democracy in the Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion introduced by the Prime Minister concerns intra-party affairs. On 14th July, the eight Assemblymen published their letter to the Chairman in the newspapers. We clearly pointed out the lack of democracy and the anti-people trend in the Party. In the Hong Lim by-election our Party suffered a great loss. This clearly shows that the policy adopted by the leadership is against the interests of the people. The present leadership in the Party cannot reflect the interests of the people. Now, all the people of Singapore are dissatisfied with the P.A.P. and Party members have also lost confidence in the leadership. The leadership has no courage to face the questions put by the members who hope that the "rojak party" opposite-

Order. I hope I did hear rightly, but I think the hon. Member has been translated as saying that the Party opposite was a "rojak party". Although I myself like rojak quite a lot, I do feel it might be considered offensive to call a Party a "rojak party".

(In Mandarin): I used the words "rojak party" figuratively. It means a party composed of divergent views with so many elements. Mr Speaker, Sir, we read recently from the newspapers that the views put forward by our Party leadership do not differ much from the views put forward by the former pro-colonial Government. Our leaders always like to give a red cap to anyone who does not agree with the Party leadership, the so-called "pro-Communist Left-wing" and other terms. Mr Speaker, Sir, why do some of the Assemblymen rebel against the leadership? A group of heroes in the past were detained by the colonial Government because of their struggle for freedom. This group of anti-colonialist fighters suffered a lot. It is because of their sacrifices that we were able to enter this Assembly as a governing Party. It is because of their sacrifices and the blood they shed that we were able to come into this Assembly. As an anti-colonialist, I do not wish to use the gentlemen opposite to discuss our intra-party matters. We hope our Prime Minister will withdraw his motion and submit this dispute to a conference of the Central Executive Committee and the 51 Branches and go on with our struggle for freedom to implement our long-term objectives.

Order. I do not know whether there are very many more speakers. It is nearly eight o'clock. Can I have an indication as to how many more are going to speak? Several hon. Members indicated their intention to speak.

In that case, I propose to suspend for one hour. I will take this Chair again at 9 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 7.59 p.m. to 9.00p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.00 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed. 9.02 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the motion. My opinion is the same as that expressed by some members in the Party. Though the opinion may be the same, I think it is better to repeat it because this is not an unimportant thing. First, I would like to refer to what the Member for Cairnhill has said. I think a Member of integrity would be ashamed to hear it. In the old days if we had heard these things said by him, he would have been faced with a counterattack. But his position now is entirely different. The situation today is that the minority leadership in the Party has introduced this motion. I have nothing much to say except that we are very disheartened at it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I really feel very uncomfortable and I do not understand. The Government is in a quandary, surrounded on and attacked from all sides. This situation should not have arisen. The introduction of the motion of the Prime Minister is a wrong move, judging it from any angle. It should have been thrashed out in the Party itself. It has not received the support of the Party at all. If it had been agreed to by all the Party members, then only would it have been right to introduce it into the Assembly. But, in fact, the Prime Minister did not seek any discussion on this motion. Therefore, the introduction of this motion is clearly something which has been manipulated by the minority leadership. This is improper. The division in the ranks of our Party shows that the leadership was lacking in democracy for not having convened a meeting of the 51 P.A.P. Branches to discuss party problems and matters. The leadership did not dare to accede to the request of the members of the Party, but they saw fit to introduce party issues into the Assembly. This kind of political tactic is adopted in order to confuse the people. Everybody clearly knows that our Party has 39 seats in the Assembly and there has never been an occasion for any Member on this side or on that side of the House to criticise this fact. Why does the leadership try to introduce a motion of confidence in the Government? This shows that they have no trust in us. They are afraid to discuss this matter in the Party itself, perhaps because they fear that they might not get the support of their comrades. But then without this support, they should not have introduced this motion here. They want us to follow them blindly. Therefore, they have resorted to the use of this Assembly in order to achieve their objective. I think that any recourse to the use of the Assembly as a means of carrying out any measure detrimental to the people will be against the conscience of the Government. I believe that the people of Singapore, who are very politically conscious, will not be confused over this issue and that they will stand up to claim the fruits which they have obtained after so many years of struggle. This dispute is an intra-party issue, whether the P.A.P. is going to follow the people's line in continuing the anti-colonial struggle. It is an issue concerning a basic political principle. The P.A.P. has to face this political reality in order to win the trust and confidence of the whole Party and the people. It is not right and proper to take a strong line to suppress the democratic rights of the people by resorting to the introduction of this motion here to get a confidence vote on it. The leadership should have got the issue settled in the Party itself. We joined the P.A.P. and our efforts have helped to build it up. Without our support and our efforts, the Party could not have become what it is today. But now the minority leadership is controlling the Party in every way. This is the real crisis in the Party. Let history prove who are treacherous to the Party.

Order. I think I must draw the attention of hon. Members - especially the Members on the Back-benches on the Government side-to Standing Order No. 54 which reads: `The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.' I think there has been some repetition which is becoming tedious. Perhaps Members on the Government Back-benches who wish to speak will bear that Standing Order in mind. 9.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I am an old man. Until now I thought the end of the world would come sooner for me than or some of my young colleagues. I think the end of the world will come sooner for them than for me. By trying to destroy the Party which has so far supported them, they are trying to destroy themselves. They have no following of their own. They think the Party is going down. So they allow themselves to become prisoners of anti-P.A.P. forces led by Lim Ching Siong and his friends. Even the Member for Anson, who thinks he is free, is in fact a prisoner of the same anti-P.A.P. forces. Today I heard him in this House defending Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and their friends. These were the same people whom he once condemned in the same House as dangerous subversives. I am an old man - I say this again - and I am sorry that everything appears upside down. I am sure it is not due to my eyesight. It is due to the treacherous activities of Lim Ching Siong and his friends. I fully support the leadership of the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister's motion. Let the House have confidence in us. If not, let us all get ready to go to our graves. I am an old man - I say once again - and I am ready for my grave. 9.14 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we have heard just now our old colleague talk about the fact that we have today attacked our Party. But here I would like to express my opinion. The eight Assemblymen have presented our views to the Central Executive Committee, and they show that our stand is similar to the P.A.P.'s stand. Therefore, we are fully convinced that we are not against our Party's policy. And so their criticism that we are attacking the Party is groundless. Our Prime Minister has moved this motion today for discussion. The reason for it has been expressed by our colleagues. The motive of the motion is to resolve the differences about the lack of democracy in our Party. The introduction of the motion was due to the intra-party struggle because of lack of democracy. Mr Speaker, today we discuss the question whether we have confidence in the Government. Some Members on the Opposition who have already spoken have attacked the P.A.P. Government. People may wonder whether the representatives of the people on the Government side are right in attacking the Government. We have said, as the Opposition have also said, that this is wrong and that is wrong. But we differ from the reactionary Right in that we, as representatives of the people, are also members of the P.A.P. What we say today is said as members of the P.A.P. and not as Members of the Government, and still less as Members of the Opposition. We hope that the people will not forget this, as otherwise they will not understand the meaning of our speeches. As has been said by other Members, it is improper to bring this motion to the House today, because it concerns our Party's struggle. There is no need to call on the Opposition Members to interfere. Although the motion has been brought from within the Party to the Assembly, we as Members of the Assembly have to join issue with the Government and the party leadership. From our point of view, this is in accordance with the interests of the people. Mr Speaker, first, I want to ask what is meant by "confidence in the Government"? Does it mean that it is sufficient for a few people to have confidence in the Government? We deny this. We were elected by the people, and we do not want to cheat others, nor do we want to cheat ourselves. Even if the Members give the Government 100 per cent confidence, that does not reflect confidence in the Party and in the leadership. If we get 100 per cent confidence, if we repeat past errors and go against the accepted principles, then the people will still be dissatisfied with us and we might lose their confidence. This is very clear even to a boy of three years, and more so to the leadership of the Party. But the big question is: why do they file this motion before the House? We have lost the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections, and with the loss of two seats, the P.A.P. has 39 seats, but still has a majority. I say that there is no real problem of confidence or non-confidence in the Government. Mr Speaker, I should now explain the causes that have led to the differences in the Party. The Opposition said that this was caused by the Communists in the Party. It is not surprising at all. What is surprising is, today, even the so-called progressive leadership also admit it. All the problems facing the Party are blamed on Mr Lim Ching Siong. Mr Lim Ching Siong is a great trade unionist and a leader of the workers, but he is not a demi-god. Alone, he cannot have the force or the power to disrupt the Party. But this great man (Mr, Lee Kuan Yew) said that we are controlled by Mr Lim Ching Siong. We are reasonable men and we can reason for ourselves and think for ourselves. Let all the people be careful and think for themselves: why is the Government attacked all round? Why is it that so many party cadres and the thousands of P.A.P. members believe that as the leaders have come into power and have assumed very high offices, they have changed? But today, they have resorted to mean tactics, equivalent to bribery, in order to retain leadership in the Party. But we want to tell them that the buying-over of people with money is not permitted according to political principles. Mr Speaker, let me say why the Party leadership has fallen into the pit. It is because they have turned Right. This is the main issue in our Party. Their stand now is different from that of before. We have been associating with them for so many years, and we understand fully their political motives. Therefore, what we say is not groundless. In 1959 because the people of Singapore wanted a progressive Left-wing Government, they elected the P.A.P. into power. All those members and cadres loyal to the Party had accepted the trust that the people should not be disappointed and that we should bear our responsibility. Therefore, they had fought against Right-wingers and against colonialists, and they had made great sacrifices. But today all classes of the people in Singapore are generally dissatisfied with the leadership, as are also our Party cadres and members. That is why we must openly give here our views, and I hope you. Mr Speaker, will allow us some more time to discuss this issue because the motion raised today is very important. As loyal members we have to declare our stand. We all know the attitude of our leadership towards the problems of the different communities and their stand. Anyone with brains will understand that all races have to live in harmony. All the races here have accepted it as a fact and they have lived in harmony all along, and yet the action of the leadership is not conducive to that. They have repeatedly cried out slogans about the unity of the different races, hut they have in fact been resorting only to slogans like "super-Malaya", and so on. On the other hand, they resort to suppressing the people who do not agree with them. and now they have suddenly raised the issue of merger. This is not without any motive. In fact, the Federation Government and the Malays have increased their suspicion in regard to the Chinese community in Singapore. The leadership cannot evade this responsibility. The general members in the Party have been excited and unduly stirred because some of them have been named as Leftist elements. They think that the Leftists are fundamentally opposed to merger, but hope that merger can take place immediately. But they find that their interpretation has been proved to be wrong. We know that the purpose of the leadership is to use the issue of merger to defeat all Left-wingers in order to maintain their political power. But this act of resorting to political power by suppressing the Left-wing is something that we cannot accept. This will one day lead to some trouble. By then it is too late to regret. As a progressive Left-wing Party, we have responsibilities. There is great significance in Left-wing unity and unity in the Party, but the division in the Left-wing Party has been made clear only recently. When we Left-wing people enter into a new era, we have to unite together to progress towards the right path. Some people who feel justified in our policies have gone out campaigning for the Party in order to obtain security for the Party. But when the by-election was lost, they put the responsibility on the other people. Others were to be blamed. They were innocent. This attitude of not wanting to unite all the Left-wing forces has been known to us. But we have under-rated their hypocrisy. Now they have openly split the trade union movement. At present, the leadership's great enemy is the Left-wing forces. Those Right-wingers are their friends. They can unite with them. When they talk of the so-called non-Communist Left and the Communist Left, they are merely playing political tricks. Mr Speaker, in words and deeds our leadership in the Party are very similar to those of Lim Yew Hock. There are a lot of facts to be enumerated. Now I will quote only a few facts to show you. First, in the Anson by-election, the Alliance candidate had no difference of opinion with our Minister for Finance. It is a matter of being a different Party only. This fact has been revealed at the forum held at the University of Malaya when our P.A.P. representative and the representative of the Alliance were very similar in the content of their speeches. This is an unusual coincidence. Mr Speaker, the people are not forgetful, and we can remember that Lim Yew Hock has a very similar speech. They knew only-

Order. I think the hon. Member knows the Standing Order. It says he must not refer to a Member of this Assembly by name. He should refer to him by his constituency.

(In Mandarin): They ask, without the base, what are we going to do? They say in Singapore 100 per cent of the interests are dependent on the British forces. Therefore, in their conclusion, they say we must not chase out the British. We must not be anti-colonialist. This has greatly disappointed us. Mr Speaker, we clearly understand that the attitude of the leadership in the P.A.P. and that of the leadership of the Alliance towards the people is the same. And the people have lost confidence in their attitude. The leadership think that the people are easily led into believing in Communism. They intend not to take the people into their confidence. For the past two years we have seen that the P.A.P. leadership actually like the attitude of the Alliance. They consider that half of the people are foolish. After their defeat in the Hong Lim by-election, they blame the voters for not returning them to power. Therefore, they cannot have close association with the people. They cannot mix with the people. Since the people have understood their aspirations, we have expressed our different points of view. Mr Speaker, I would like to tell you that the P.A.P. does not belong to the leadership. The P.A.P. belongs to all the comrades and members and executives. It has been created by the combined efforts of the rank and file. In the year 1959, the people had great confidence in our Party. Because of that, we won 43 seats. In the eyes of the people, the Party has enjoyed great prestige. Unfortunately, in the short period of two years, we have today fallen into this position. It is very sad indeed. The leadership have called upon the people, through the Members of this House, to have confidence in them. This is not a joke. It is verb serious. Politics is very important. It is not a joke. Because it greatly influences the lives of the people. Therefore, with great confidence they say they will not assume power unless the people have confidence in them. They have threatened that trouble may begin. At this time they still call on the people to have confidence in them. We hope that this is not a joke. Mr Speaker, I hope you will pay attention to the fact that intra-party troubles should be resolved by ourselves. If the leadership intend to carry out the policies and reflect the attitude of the Party, then let them quickly summon all the 51 branches for a Party meeting. We hope then that this trouble will be resolved in our Party and not in the House. 9.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today if is with a heavy and sad heart that I speak. Today when I entered this Assembly I see a political waverer, one who wants to hand over Singapore to the United Nations Organisation. It is with a sad heart that I say this. Because the President of the T.U.C. was defeated by him. And this defeat is one which has been brought about by members of our Party who stabbed us in the back. That is why we suffered the defeat. If we look at the history of the P.A.P. and compare it with the history of this candidate, then the one who should have entered this House today should not be the one who has been sworn in. He should be one who works for the benefit of the workers, who struggles for the workers and represents them. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard our own comrades in the Party speak. They say there is a lack of democracy in the Party. They criticise and attack the Party leadership. I am a member of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. And I say the people of Singapore will know the truth. Frankly speaking, the People's Action Party may have made some errors in their policy, but in principle they have made no errors. If it is said that there is no democracy in the Party, then, after the defeat of the Hong Lim by-election, why did we hold a joint meeting to review the work of the Party? At this time, every Member of the Assembly has the opportunity to raise questions. Among these Members, some were elected into the Committee. Two were elected as members of the Committee. Every Branch of the Party has had the opportunity to give their views as regards policy to the leadership. Mr Speaker, Sir, can you say there is no democracy in the Party? Today I see our own comrades holding a sharp knife and stabbing their own comrades. This makes me feel very sad indeed. One of us scolds the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has been chosen by us. He represents Singapore. The Prime Minister is at present the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. They have insulted him. I believe our Members will feel very sad to see in tomorrow's papers that one of our comrades has scolded the Secretary-General, and used very bad words to describe him. But the principles of the Party have not changed at all. At every sitting of the Assembly, there has been no one to criticise the policies of the Party. But today, there has been talk that the Party has changed. If that is so, then everyone of them should be responsible for it. Why did they not bring this matter up in the past? Why did they not criticise the Party at Party meetings? Sometimes when I criticised some matters, these people scorned me. I remember on one occasion when the Party has just been in the government for sometime, I attacked one Government servant - that was Thomson - but everyone of them scorned me then. Why? The P.A.P. at that time was very stable. They could not argue over small mistakes. I cannot pay respect to that kind of hero. Party matters should be resolved within the Party. Why should they bring up this matter during the course of the Anson by-election? No one can tolerate this stabbing from behind. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard an S.P.A. Member of the Opposition, the Member for Cairnhill, criticising the Government and saying that we should admit to something before they could support us. This S.P.A. Member should not imagine that the P.A.P., in the course of its struggle over a period of six years, could be induced to go over to the other side. On this side, I must emphasise that the P.A.P. will not be like the Lim Yew Hock Government. The Lim Yew Hock Government used certain tactics to deal with people. We, the P.A.P., want to debate the question of the one man one vote system and to get the confidence of the people by this way. We will never resort to his methods. Some comrades have said that we are adopting means to deal with them. What they have said is wrong. We know some tricks to deal with them. Coming to a collusion with the Right will never happen. This talk is unnecessary and the doubt is unfounded. Mr Speaker, Sir, at present our main enemy is still around. All we want to achieve now is to defeat British colonialism. We should be anti-rightist. Therefore, they think that by firing off some falsehoods, in the words of the Prime Minister, they will succeed; but in future, the truth will be out. Mr Speaker. Sir, one of us did not understand some questions concerning the Party and had become sceptical and had even accused the Party. So I want to explain to him because maybe he did not understand the policy because he has been in the Party for just a short time. I want to tell him this that the cadres of the Party are selected by the various Branches of the Party. He should remember this. The Central Executive Committee selects the cadres. This selection is decided on the performance and work of the member of the Party concerned. So I would like to tell this member who does not understand, not to magnify a small matter, to insult and smear our own Members or comrades. We should unite together and should not shirk our responsibilities. We should carry out the people's mission and should not disappoint them. 9.53 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I found it hard to believe that tonight's special session would develop into what it is now. I feel that I am in a dream world. But after having followed with great interest the speeches made by Members of this House, I find it imperative, on behalf of the Alliance, in particular U.M.N.O., to express my views on this matter. The political developments in Singapore to date have only reached the status of self-government. Our aim to liberate the island of Singapore in this kind of atmosphere will be even farther of achievement. Who will laugh at us after seeing the events happening in this Assembly? Nobody else but the British colonialists. Mr Speaker, since the beginning, we have not deviated from our attitude towards this Government which has claimed to have the overwhelming support of the people, the loyalty of whose membership is unquestionable: whose policy is acceptable to the people, and whose leadership is approved by the people. But as has been demonstrated to them, our suspicions, particularly those of U.M.N.O., have now been confirmed. All kinds of abuses were heaped on the Opposition side (which originally had eight Members) with no sense of decency, although we represent certain sections of the people. We were accused of being the tools of colonialism. But now it is our turn to accuse them of being the tools of certain forces which want to grab power for their own ends. Mr Speaker, I think there is no need for me to recapitulate matters to which we had drawn Government's attention. It can be said that what we have said has fallen on deaf ears. It is as though we are speaking to a deaf person. We know the tactics of the Communists. In our opinion, we will not compromise if necessary with the Communists. If they want to use violence, we will meet them with violence. That is the stand of U.M.N.O. which represents the Malay section of the community in Singapore. They have been recognised and acknowledged in the Preamble [of the Constitution] as the indigenous people of Singapore. Our stand does not centre around ideologies. To us, it is a small matter and we should not engage in unnecessary arguments over it. However, the Government or the P.A.P. have boasted that their ideology brings not disunity but unity to the people of Singapore. I repeat what we have said in our constructive criticisms in the past. We have said that the tiger which they bring up will one day devour them. There is no doubt about it. They realise now that they are in pain. The problem confronting us now, Mr Speaker, I agree, concerns all the people of Singapore, although there are certain quarters which maintain that it has no connection with the people and that it is an intra-party struggle. If the Party in power is facing a crisis, will that mean that there is to be no association between them and the people who voted them into power? These double-faced tactics of the Government - like a double-edged saw - I say, are deluding the people. There can be no compromise on this issue. The damage created by the Government should be solely blamed on the government in power. 10.01 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must declare my stand on this motion, otherwise I can hardly face the people in my constituency. The purpose of the Prime Minister's motion today is to force us to break away from him. Let me point out the motive behind the Prime Minister's motion. In short, the Party leadership wish to obtain greater power for themselves. Let me quote a passage from the Prime Minister's letter: `In order to maintain peace and order in the country the Government, on behalf of the people, has to resort to some unpleasant and awkward actions. I do not wish to assume responsibility in this respect.' From this, it can be clearly seen what his motive is. I think everybody can still remember very well the former Chief Minister. Tun Lim Yew Hock, when he challenged the people by using words in like vein. But I would like to point out that we will not be confused and coerced by these adventurers through intimidation to follow the Prime Minister to death. We will not be forced into it. I think one can judge fairly by wisely reasoning out the Government leadership's attitude and the statements issued on behalf of the Party during the past few years. The Prime Minister has brought an intra-party issue into this Assembly. It is not logical. The Prime Minister wants to have a vote on this motion, and this cannot be other than a trap. If it is a trap, then I have to expose it, but I will not fall into it. Everybody can remember that after the defeat of the Party in the Hong Lim by-election, some of the leaders in our Party did not want to take heed of the experiences and lessons gained from the defeat and admit their errors. They did not intend to abandon their leadership. But after public opinion as reflected in newspaper editorials was expressed and, the stand taken by our Party members was discussed, they came to admit their errors. Therefore, the question whether the Government should resign or not was postponed till after the Anson by-election. But then these circumstances brought about a dissident feeling amongst the general members. Now that the Anson by-election has been held, it is high time for the issue to be discussed at a joint conference of the Central Executive Committee and the 51 P.A.P. Branches. But the Prime Minister dare not face the criticisms of the members. He has not the courage to rectify his own errors. That is why he dare not convene a conference to discuss the issue in a democratic way. That being the case, he wants us to express our confidence in him. We know that our Prime Minister and the minority leadership have control over the Government, and they want us to express our confidence in them. I think this course is not proper, because the Party leadership have not absorbed any new experience or learnt lessons from collective criticisms. They have, instead, resorted to bringing this issue into the Assembly. The purpose is to confuse the vision of the people and to ask us to follow them blindly. I would like to say that we have our basic stand, which is to oppose resolutely colonialism and maintain the rights and improve the living standard of the people. So I think the Prime Minister's motion is absurd. Mr Speaker, Sir, you must be aware, from the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Party Chairman, that there is a passage to the effect that the Prime Minister said that it was another test of strength between the pro-Communist Left and the non-Communist Left, and that the present Government is faced with new forces launched by the pro-Communist Left. That is a machination. The Prime Minister thought he could confuse the vision of the people so that they would not see clearly what is ahead of them in the path taken by the minority leadership. Mr Speaker, Sir, the eight Assemblymen in the Party are accused of being Communists. Let me tell you that there are many members who hold different opinions from those held by the Prime Minister. This does not mean that you can accuse them all of being Communists. The Prime Minister is most capable in the use of new terminologies about us, and this makes me sad and disheartened. I am afraid his political bankruptcy has led him to this impasse. The eight Assemblymen who hold different views from those of the Prime Minister are accused of being anti-national unity, anti-merger, and so on. These accusations are very serious and grave. I must solemnly declare that I have never opposed national unity with Malaya. I have taken a similar stand in the past and I shall continue to take it in the future. The freedom and the rights of the people should be prerequisites to a merger. We must not sell out the interests of the people in order to achieve merger. We know that in the present situation obtaining in Singapore democratic rights have been won through the struggle and sacrifices of many people in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you have to eat bread to gain strength. Merger can be likened to the eating of bread and therefore we must achieve a merger. But we must understand that there must be something in addition to bread, it could be butter, jam or kaya. If you do not know what is spread on a slice of bread, then you will not dare to eat it for fear that it might contain poison. Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the speech of the Prime Minister which lasted for more than an hour. He gave vent to his feelings in his speech and it can be described very shortly. His long speech was somewhat in the nature of some of the speeches of the former Chief Minister, Tun Lim Yew Hock, because at that time Tun Lim did not reveal the fact that he had sold out the rights of the people.

Order. I must remind the hon. Member that he must not use the name of a Member of this Assembly. He must refer to the Member by his constituency.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for your direction. I want to point out that in the past the Chief Minister, whose constituency was Havelock, was in a quandary because he was under pressure from all sides, and this led him to take action detrimental to the interest of the people. He did not reveal his action and he did not want to know fully whether we were genuine Leftists, or pro-Communists, etc. I would like to mention here some of the developments which have taken place after the Anson by-election culminating in the introduction of the present motion. In this respect I want to refer to the speech of the Member for Cairnhill. We know that the result of the Anson by-election is an indication that the people are highly politically conscious. Their choice in this by-election is correct. We can establish this fact as a comparison. Now I want to mention the defeat of the Lib-Socs and the Singapore Congress. Why were they defeated so pitifully? In the 1959 general elections the P.A.P. got-

Order. I wonder if the hon. Member can indicate how the detailed results of Anson have any bearing on this particular motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is because today this motion before us is the result of the Anson by-election. If there were no Anson by-election, there would not have been such a sudden change in the political situation, and we might not have to debate this motion today. That is why I have to deal with the cause of this motion and to refer to a few points raised in the speech of the Prime Minister, who is now accused by the people. Therefore, as a comparison, I have to mention the number of votes polled. We understand that the Party that was returned in Anson in the 1959 elections polled a majority of 3,292 votes, and the Lib-Socs only got 1,231 votes, as against 104 in that by-election. Moreover, the Opposition have united and formed themselves into an Alliance. I want to mention this fact because this will teach them a lesson as their past defeat was the result of going against the will of the people. Therefore, after two years of opposition, in other words, after two years of government by the P.A.P., they had not criticised the Government in regard to the welfare of the people. They did not do so. They still took the attitude of selfishness, and therefore, they suffered a defeat. In their speeches they repeatedly said that if today's motion is anti-Communist, then they will vote for it. I feel that we must understand the Communist Party well. We have not seen the Communist Party here because they work only for themselves. If they are against the people, then the people will abandon them. In other words, all sorts of illegal terms such as "pro-Communist" and "Communists" will be used in order that an opportunity is provided to say, "You are a Communist and you can be detained." That is why I say that the people's livelihood depends on their attaining liberty. For instance, if my wish is to hive in a house made of concrete and so on, but I could only build an attap hut, how can society progress? Usually statesmen cannot realise their wishes and since they cannot give anything to the people, therefore they are abandoned by the people. And when they are abandoned by the people, they have to resort to tactics to deal with such a situation. Under this democratic system, they use barbaric or undemocratic methods to deal with it. Therefore, there are some terms which are illegal in law. I want to touch on what one of my colleagues said just now. She said that she was very sad to see the situation in this Assembly today, that the eight Members in the P.A.P. deserted the Party. Let us find out why the leadership met with defeat in Anson. It could be attributed to their not knowing how to lead, perhaps not getting the opinions of all strata in the Party who are conscious of the needs of the people, and thereby not adopting a correct policy. It is because of the undemocratic attitude which they have adopted that has caused the people to be dissatisfied with them. If the Party leadership could listen to the opinions voiced by our eight Members here, and if they disagreed and so declared to the people the contents of their speeches, then they would have retained their support and would not have suffered such a crushing defeat. We released the letter openly, the reason being that our Party had neglected our request for a discussion. On the one hand, they said they wanted to discuss with us, but on the other hand, they let Mr Devan Nair make a statement on behalf of the Party at a forum organised by the University Socialist Club at the University of Malaya, which led to the result of the Anson by-election. They omitted to make a statement in the Anson by-election. This caused general dissatisfaction to the people of Anson. Therefore, the disclosure of this letter disproved what Mr Nair had said so that the people in that constituency would know that there is still some democracy in our Party and our Party can still have some hope of carrying out the job of serving the people. On the other hand, if our letter had caused the defeat of the Party in the Anson by-election, then one point had to be acknowledged - the onus should not be on us but on the leadership. Because if we were wrong, then why should the people still follow us? Just now I said that the Four-Party Alliance had a reduced poll in the by-election. This shows that the people are always correct. They are always progressing. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us now deal with some points raised by the hon. Member for the Southern Islands. The hon. Member said that he was speaking on the same theme as the hon. Member for Cairnhill. He said that our Party claimed to be anti-Communist and yet alleged that there are Communists in our Party. I must say that this blame should be put on the leadership of our Party, as one of our spokesmen has said just now, because the problem was not properly dealt with. Usually they resort to using very unpleasant terms about certain people. Here I must refer to certain points raised by the hon. Member for the Southern Islands. He said that the leadership of the Party must not speak in such a tone when they cannot achieve their aims and resort to all sorts of mean tactics in order to achieve their purpose. Mr Speaker, lastly, I must necessarily remind all here that those who cause misery will ultimately cause their own destruction. They will finally be judged by the people. I will remind them that no matter what our members in the Party or Opposition Members say, they have to bear this in mind. 10.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has at last thought fit to disclose publicly that within his Party there are two rival groups -the Communist Left and the non-Communist Left. Sir, this is a very serious disclosure with serious implications. One implication is that for the sake of winning the last general elections, the People's Action Party was prepared to welcome into its arms the Communist Left. Was that a wise move? The second implication, Sir, is that while in the Federation the Communists are regarded as subversive elements, the policy of the governing Party here is such that those who come over to Singapore and join their Party are given legal protection. Sir, how is this going to help in promoting good relations between Singapore and the Federation? Another very serious implication is that if, in the struggle for power within the People's Action Party, the Communist Left manages to take over control, that means that the Communist Party has captured Singapore. Sir, I will just mention those three implications and let the group in control of the People's Action Party think seriously, and think of what steps they should take to rectify the situation. Sir, we have listened to two very dramatic stories of behind-the-scenes struggle; on the one hand, of plots and counter plots, of moves made by the British, by the Communist Left and by the Government, and on the other hand, we have heard from the dissident group accusations of the lack of democracy in the party organisation and so on. We believe that very likely the truth is to be found in both versions. Sir, to me, four points of importance have emerged. Firstly, that this struggle for power within the Party must have been very intense, so intense that it has had to he brought to the notice of the public. But it shows also that a Party in power which depends on Communist elements for its strength cannot be a stable government. Therefore, how is the Party in power going to attract investors, or help to restore a climate of confidence to this country, thereby producing more factories, establishing more industries, and, therefore, producing more jobs for the unemployed? Sir, the second point is this. The Prime Minister has stated that his group is still prepared to protect the Communist Party. Sir, this must be very disturbing to many in Singapore, the Federation, Brunei, Borneo and Sarawak. We have seen in history in recent years that we cannot under-rate, we cannot under-estimate the strength and the skill of the Communist leaders. If the Prime Minister and his friends think that they can outwit the Communist leadership, they are trying to do what other leaders in other countries have failed. We are not saying that the Communists are not human beings. They are. Personally I have no hatred for my fellow human beings. But we do not want an ideology which enslaves the people, depriving them of their freedom to think and act for themselves. Sir, that is where we differ. Another point is this. The People's Action Party considers that the only way to independence is through merger. Sir, we have agreed with them, but we have also expressed our doubts whether in the present context this merger with the Federation is now possible. What with the disclosures that have been made, I am sure the chances of merger have become more remote. Therefore, the only way to independence while preserving good relations would be through a confederation of independent States where we in Singapore do not endanger in any way the people in the Federation or in other neighbouring countries. Sir, I believe the ruling group in the People's Action Party are also in agreement with this. The Prime Minister has said that his duty is to preserve the People's Action Party in the midst of zigzagging manoeuvres. I may have left out a few words, Sir, I have tried to copy them verbatim. Surely the primary aim of a political Party is not to preserve its own self, but to serve the people of the country, to promote their welfare, their security, their freedom. And if it is necessary for the Party to sacrifice itself for the sake of the country, then if we are statesmen we will sacrifice our Party for our country. But if we are politicians, Sir, then the Party comes first. The people can go to hell. Sir, the motion, as it stands, goes against the feelings of the people. If you say that the people have confidence in the Government, then we are going against the expression of opinion of the majority of the people. The people are dissatisfied with the way, the Government has treated the employees-drastic pay cuts without proper negotiations, and now partial restoration in a very dilatory manner. I mean, Sir, from the very start there was no ground for those pay cuts and, therefore, morally the Government should restore all the pay cuts, and thereafter negotiate on the basis of the present financial state of the country for a proper reduction in salaries. Sir, very likely the complaints of the rebel group are correct. When people cannot be democratic in their own Party, how can they be democratic towards the citizens of a country? In their treatment of the teachers, we regret to say that the Government are applying a principle which cannot be called socialistic. More work for less pay. More work per day. More days per week. It is therefore difficult to maintain the efficiency of the education system of this country under such conditions. How can you blame the teachers if they are dissatisfied and if many of them seek better conditions of service elsewhere? Sir, the number of unemployed is increasing, and when the children leave school, what prospects have they? Again and again I have met former students some of whom have been unemployed for the last two years. What prospects of employment have they except to join the Work Brigade? Naturally, Sir, the people are dissatisfied. They are unhappy. The economic condition of the country is declining. Now we come to these disclosures. How can we say that the government of the country is going to be more stable? Sir, we realise that the leaders of the People's Action Party perhaps were sincere in their motive and have made mistakes in their methods. But if they want to regain the confidence of the people, they must be humble enough to admit and to rectify their mistakes. If they will treat the people of Singapore more like human beings than as robots, as pieces of machinery, perhaps they will get a better response. The leader of the Alliance has said that if the purpose of this motion is to enable the leaders of the P.A.P. to prevent Singapore from falling into Communist hands, we will not embarrass them. But if the motion is to obtain from us an affirmation that the people of Singapore are satisfied and have confidence in the Government, then I regret to say, in the face of what we know, that we are not able to do that. 10.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to hear just now from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health that differences within the Party should be thrashed out in the Party, and I invite the eight stalwarts of intra-party democracy to take heed of what their colleague has said. It was these very eight traitorous Assemblymen who flouted the decision made by the P.A.P. Assemblymen themselves by taking internal party issues to the public, and that at a time when the Party was fighting a crucial by-election in Anson. Was there any consultation prior to the publication of their statement in the Press? We were engaged in fighting a by-election while these so-called loyal eight Assemblymen and the Parliamentary Secretaries were bitterly engaged in sinister plottings behind our backs. This. I suppose, is what they call intra-party democracy. I do not wish to delve into the troubles of my Party in this House. But suffice it to say that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs finds the Party's Constitution so disgustingly undemocratic, it is indeed surprising that he should have joined the Party in the first instance, stood as a candidate on its ticket and, together with the young man who aspires to higher office the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health accepted the posts of Parliamentary Secretaries of a government which they accused of having no democracy. All this talk of the undemocratic Constitution of the P.A.P. reminds one of the voice of the Member for Hong Lim. For their information, the present Constitution of the P.A.P. was, to a certain extent, the work of the Member for Hong Lim who, not so long ago, also accused the P.A.P. of undemocratic and lack of intra-party democracy. In case the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs is not aware, the Constitution of the Party was precisely designed to prevent capture by insincere and disloyal party elements and those who willingly allow themselves to be used to further a cause which will only bring chaos and disaster to the country. Intra-party democracy does not mean stabbing your comrades in the back. Intra-party democracy does not mean discussing party differences by issuing public statements at a crucial by-election to injure the Party and its candidate. Intra-party democracy does not mean inviting outside forces to pressure the Party into deviating from its basic objective of independence through merger. These are acts of treachery of the worst kind. It is well that the Assembly meets today to discuss a motion calling for a vote of confidence in the Government at a time when the people have been presented with a very clear picture of the political situation in our island State. It is equally fortunate that events in the recent past have helped greatly to remove the rather blurred political lines, thus making it easier for all to witness the contest taking place in the political arena. To the extent that the people of Singapore are also profoundly aware of the issues at stake, the motion before Us should bring out, as I am sure it has brought out, the deeper significance which underlies it. I might even add that even some of the more simple-minded Members of the Opposition who were known to have been concerned why the P.A.P. should want a non-Communist, socialist Malaya are now probably convinced about the wisdom of this categorical stand of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, today no one doubts any longer what is meant by the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. During the Hong Lim by-election the call to "seek concord while maintaining differences" was made by the anti-national Left. This call may have gone down with some political innocents because at Hong Lim the constitutional issue had not then come up to the surface as it did at Anson. At Hong Lim the call to "seek concord while maintaining differences" could have referred to or mean anything the anti-national Left wanted it to mean. There was then no need for them to be specific. It was then to their advantage not to be too specific in this call to "seek concord while maintaining differences". Under the circumstances, not only was the call to seek concord highlighted, but it was highlighted with such singing of praises for the P.A.P. The P.A.P. they consistently repeated was within the limitations of the situation: the most progressive socialist force in Singapore: the P.A.P. was for the people: the P.A.P. was the banner to rally round to defeat Right-wing reaction and opportunism: the P.A.P. was correct in its stand "at this stage of our political history", and so on and so forth. We know that it is absolutely rubbish to talk about seeking concord when your differences are fundamental and when you seek basically different .goals. We know that it is foolish to talk about a united anti-colonial front and Left-wing unity when our stand was and is still an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. And that was why, as Malayan nationalists and socialists, we refused to respond to the insincere call for Left-wing unity upon which to seek concord. We have not sought concord because we are democratic socialists. Any Left-wing unity will have to be on the basis of a democratic, non-Communist Malayan socialism. And the stand of Malayan socialism based on Malayan nationalism became as clear as daylight when at Anson the anti-national Left showed their true colours and abandoned our stand to continue with our declared objective of working for independence through merger with the Federation. 10.50 p.m.

The complete somersault by the six unionists who represent the anti-national Communist Left after the Chairman of the P.A.P. announced on 9th June our objective of total eradication of colonialism in Singapore and complete independence through merger with the Federation, or a larger Federation when constitutional talks open in 1963, speaks for itself. Let us not be sidetracked by the demand of the anti-national Left group to release the detainees, etc. Let us be clear about our short-term and long-term objectives. While our immediate objective is, as the Chairman of the Party declared on 9th June, i.e. - the total eradication of colonialism in Singapore and complete independence through merger with the Federation in 1963, that of the anti-national Left group is full internal self-government in 1963. The people of Singapore will not be deceived about talk of minimum demands. While our long-term aim is a democratic non-Communist socialist Malaya, that of the anti-national Left group is an independent Singapore with merger suddenly becoming a long-term objective. The lines are no longer blurred. It is plain that the anti-national Left group have used the detainee, citizenship and other issues as a red herring to distract public attention from their fundamental deviation from the P.A.P.'s basic principles and policies. They have not answered Government's offer to disclose the grounds for refusing their citizenship. Neither have they answered our question whether they seriously suggested that the Government should iii the midst of the Anson by-election risk a constitutional crisis on the question of the detainees. They have remained silent to this day even after the treachery they committed against their colleague, the President of the T.U.C., who stood as the P.A.P.'s candidate in Anson. Mr Deputy Speaker, I venture to suggest that they cannot answer the question even now, because it is not the P.A.P. alone which is waiting for the explanation from them, but the people of Singapore, and the people of the Federation of Malaya as a whole have called them to account for their deviation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion before us will of necessity be put to an open vote, precisely because it is an open issue. The treachery committed by the non-national Leftist minority is a recurrence of the same blunder committed by the M.C.P. 13 years ago. In political terms, it is not treachery against the P.A.P. as such, but it is one committed against Malayan nationalism comprising the Malays, Chinese and Indians and all others who belong to no other country but Malaya. The political innocents who have been so easily duped into shouting about the detainees, citizenship, etc, must be aware that the fight is still a three-cornered one until such time as when we achieve merdeka through merger. It is today an acknowledged fact that the P.A.P. is a nationalist force in the southernmost part of Malaya. Any anti-national move whether by the Communist Left or the communalist Right will he looked upon by the people of Malaya as detrimental to the interests of Malayan nationalism. Mr Deputy Speaker, I express complete support for the motion before the House. An hon. Member: More trouble! 10.58 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the problem confronting us today is, if we say serious, it is not serious; neither can we say that it is not serious, it is not because I wish to support what has been uttered by some of the supporters, the Back-benchers of the Government, but I am surprised that the Government has decided to introduce into this House such a problem, i.e. calling the House to vote confidence in the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, in my view, the problem is purely a quarrel. It is like a quarrel between husband and wife. That is to say, the wife has fraternised with another person and the husband, not knowing what to do, has therefore gone to a third party to seek reconciliation. As for me, if my wife flirts with another man, I will give her a divorce of the third degree! I hope the Government will take such a step. The Member for Moulmein has accused us of being a rojak Party. That is a stupid accusation. I can accuse the P.A.P. of being a gadoh-gadoh Party. I am sure that you. Mr Deputy Speaker, has tasted gadoh-gadoh. It is very delicious indeed. In addition, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has constantly accused us of being pro-capitalist, pro-colonialist, etc. If we are pro-capitalist or pro-colonialist, why do they seek support from us? Let them be bold and go forward and do not come to us for support. If this Government is sincere and is dedicated to serve the people of Singapore, it should take positive and definite steps in the interest of peace, as we did when we were in the Government. It should not shirk its responsibility. It has to realise its responsibility. If it fails, to realise that, then it should get out. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have learnt today that Communist elements tried to disrupt the P.A.P. in the troubled days faced by the P.A.P. in 1957. It is only today that this is exposed despite the fact that we had explained in this Chamber when we were in the Government that such events emanated from the Malayan Communist Party. The Deputy Prime Minister said that they were able to eliminate the M.C.P. elements during the troubled days of the P.A.P. in 1957 because of the strength of the Party. This is completely wrong, because it was the Lim Yew Hock Government which helped the P.A.P. if at that time the Lim Yew Hock Government did not arrest and put these elements into Changi Gaol, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and other Ministers could not have held office in the P.A.P in 1957. So we helped them out of their difficulties; otherwise they would not be in existence today. Another accusation was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health about our great leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on the question of confederation. He accused the Tunku of making such a proposition with the help and co-operation of the British, which means that he was a tool of the British. This is a very serious accusation and I challenge the hon. Member to repeat that outside the precincts of the Assembly. I believe we from the Alliance-

Do I understand that Members of this Assembly have special privileges? I would ask whether it is in order for these challenges to be made. They seem to me to be a limitation on the liberty and freedom of speech in the Assembly, and make a very grievous inroad-

Order. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

The point of order, Sir, is this: is it proper to make a challenge to a person to repeat outside what he thinks proper to say here?

I have allowed that as it is in order.

If it please you, Sir.

(In Malay): Thank you very much. Mr Deputy Speaker. Talking about challenges. I seem to remember that in 1956 the Member for Anson, who was then sitting at the back there [indicating], issued a challenge to the present Prime Minister who was then sitting in the Opposition as the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The challenge was taken up by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but the present Member for Anson did not take part in the Tanjong Pagar by-election. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health to repeat what he has said outside, because I know for a fact that it is nothing but a lie. If there are people in Singapore or in Malaya who resolutely oppose British colonialism, Tunku Abdul Rahman is one of them. There is no braver person than the Tunku himself to oppose British colonialism. It is our leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who challenged the British. He uttered speeches which no other leaders dared to do. Now there are people who say that they are anti-colonialist. At that time, if they could have licked the feet of the British, they would have done so. Similarly in the speeches of the Member for Anson during the Anson by-election, be accused indirectly and insinuated that Tunku Abdul Rahman is anti-Chinese. He dared to say this without any foundation. That is also a lie. It is not true to say that Tunku Abdul Rahman is anti-Chinese. We will most definitely not co-operate with the M.C.A., and for that matter with any political Party. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the forum held at the University of Malaya, representatives of the various political Parties - the Alliance, the Workers Party and a trade union group - discussed the problem of Malaysia. I was not present at the forum, but I was surprised, on reading the newspapers the following day, to learn that the Member for Anson referred to his meeting with the Prime Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in 1955 on the subject of a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

11.10 p.m. When I read of it. I was really amazed because I myself was in the company of the Member for Anson at the meeting that morning with the Tunku in his old house - not his new house. At that time, the Tunku was not the Prime Minister. He was the Chief Minister. I was present at that meeting. Why I say that the explanation of the Member for Anson is false is because he stated that there was a big function that morning. I was present with him in the Tunku's house. I remember we had kopi-o (coffee without milk), one egg, some toast and butter.

Order. Will the Member for Geylang Serai satisfy me that this is relevant to this motion?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe there is some relevance to the motion that we are debating now because the Prime Minister, the Member for Anson and other Members dwelt at some length on the problem of Malaysia. So I would like to explain what took place in Kuala Lumpur in 1956, otherwise such statements might mislead not only Members in this House but also the people outside this House. It is not that I wish to sing anybody's praises, but this is based on fact. I have asked the Tunku to rebut the statements made at the forum, but he, being a gentleman, considered it a small matter and that there was no necessity for him to make a denial. Therefore, I take this opportunity to raise this small issue. The statements hold no truth. The statements made by the Member for Anson in regard to the Tunku were distorted facts. I was present at that meeting. I sincerely say that three-quarters of what appeared in the Press was not true - not lies, but not true. If I say they were "lies", I may be asked to withdraw that word. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are now faced with is not the problem of the P.A.P. as a political Party or the internal struggle in the P.A.P. The problem confronting us is, in my view, a very serious one. If we are not careful, we will create a situation which we do not want to see. The stand of the Alliance - particularly U.M.N.O.-is clear. We oppose the Communists. On this Communist problem, I would like to state that we, as the indigenous people of Malaya, are prepared to shed our blood in the fight against the Communists. That is our uncompromising stand in any event, even if our houses are set on fire. At the same time, not only is the Communist problem a danger, but communalism also is a danger, just as nationalism is, i.e. nationalism Left, or nationalism Right. But in communalism, there is no Left or Right. One kind of communalism is for a special race, and the other is being used by political opportunists. If such a state of affairs exists I hope this will not happen in Singapore - the victims will not only be the P.A.P. alone, or the Alliance, or the Member for Anson, but all the people of Singapore. Coming back to the motion before us and which is moved by the Government, we of the Alliance say that although we oppose Communism, we do not wish to be tools of anybody when it comes to voting on the motion. 11.18 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you are very much concerned over the political situation in this country. Therefore, I know you will be glad to hear all our views on the whole political situation and its developments. The disputes that have taken place in our Party can be traced to the lack of democracy in the Party. People in the minority make decisions, and people who are in the majority have to follow them. In order to enable the democratic system to function and to be accepted in this country, a worker of a democratic political Party has the duty to see that there is democracy in the Party. But the leadership in our Party, on the contrary, have been shouting very loudly the word "democracy" and pretending to be democratic when there is no democratic spirit at all. The suppression of democracy for a long time in our Party has led to a big breach in the Left-wing forces. Today we grieve very much at the whole situation and its developments, because all along we have only been able to work within a limited degree of democracy. But today we can no longer allow this state of affairs to go on forever. We have tried to avoid bringing this dispute into the open, but unfortunately our leadership have neglected and are indifferent to our views. They treat us as members who ought to be loyal to only a few leaders. Here let me tell the leadership this - we know that what we are loyal to is the People's Action Party and its programmes. We support the People's Action Party and its programmes and its objectives and we will not waver. As long as colonialism exists in this country, the struggle to liberate ourselves will not cease. But why have the differences between us and the leadership developed to such a stage as this? I believe you must have read our Party platform, constitution and regulations and its manifesto. It is clear that today everybody can see that our leadership have not adhered to the principles of the Party and its manifesto in dealing with the question of principles and they have departed further and further from this objective. From the deeds and words of our Secretary-General, we do not believe that he is what he was. Our leadership are not prepared to implement the Party's objectives. Instead they accuse us of being traitors. But I wish to ask: who are the traitors? I think this can be decided by our members. But I want to stress that the Prime Minister and his leadership call us the Communist Left, and that he and his colleagues are the non-Communist Left. We feel ashamed and we regret that in addition to all this the Prime Minister likes to coin all sorts of new and curious phrases. Mr Speaker, Sir, the leadership employ this sort of tactics to spread terror far and wide among the people so as to dissuade them from supporting our objectives. This sort of tactics will not deceive the people for long. We want to stress further that ever since 1954 up till now, our stand has not changed. We have not changed from a socialist stand. We are not like some people who put on the cloak of Left-wing socialists. As a matter of fact, this group of people are really just like the Right-wing reactionaries. I believe you, Mr Speaker, understand this. History will record who really are the traitors. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you know that those political detainees still under detention are our comrades. In the history of our Party these comrades have contributed much to expand our Party and they have made great sacrifices. They have devoted much energy and have worked for the Party, but colonialist agents like the Lim Yew Hock Government adopted high-handed tactics to arrest them. They were charged by the colonialists as Communists. These comrades are the former Paya Lebar Branch Chairman, Mr Tan Mook Teng, the former Secretary, Hong Cheng Han, and other comrades. They are still being detained. And our leadership, after having been in power for 25 months, still keep our comrades in gaol as Communists. As long as they are not released, it is a mockery to the Party and its members. Therefore, I feel the continued detention of political detainees is a shame. Mr Speaker, I think you must have heard of the dispute in our Party about intra-party democracy. There has been talk of policies having been approved as a result of consultation among various types of members. This may appear to be true to outsiders, but the true picture of the collective leadership is this, Mr Speaker. I dare say that many policies have been approved as a result of consultation among the various types of members, but without the knowledge of many of us, including Parliamentary Secretaries and Party members in the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to make special mention of the question of citizenship. It is indeed a shame for me to bring this matter up, because, as members of the People's Action Party, we have been fighting shoulder to shoulder with many comrades whose applications for citizenship are still being disregarded. This, just like the question of continued detention of political detainees, is again another insult to us. We cannot forever remain indifferent in this matter because it affects the future of the Party. We have seen many citizens of Singapore who voted in 1957 and 1959 during the general elections. But now because they have lost their birth certificates, they are required to apply for citizenship. Is this not an irony? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk about the increase of school fees of school girls. We had a discussion about this. This policy has been adopted in spite of the opposition of many of the members. Mr Speaker, this is typical of the so-called collective leadership. The majority has to obey the minority. I now want to talk about the allocation of flats and the fixing of rents by the Ministry of National Development. At present, the houses allocated are fewer than formerly and the rents are higher, so that those with a great burden to shoulder - the wage-earners - are unable to stay there. This is the so-called socialist objective of our leadership. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard this leadership talking about socialism, about the equality of men and women. To increase the fees of school girls to make them the same as those of school boys - that is equality! This question of personal relief on income tax. In the case of men, $2,000 is allowed; but in the case of women only $1,000 is allowed. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is equality between men and women. This is the criterion of socialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, today at this special sitting we are required to pass a vote of confidence in the Government. I am puzzled why this matter should have been brought up here for decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, why could this matter not be decided by the 51 Branches of the Party? We have 39 members in the Assembly and we are as stable as ever. Why should there be such a show of democracy? For example, the Ong Eng Guan incident and the defeat in the Hong Lim by-election were discussed in the Party by the 51 representatives from the various Branches. Why is the present incident not referred to in a similar manner? Why should it be more serious than the incident I have just quoted? According to the principle of collective leadership, there is all the more reason for this decision to be made in the Party. They have no guts, as in the past, to bring this matter for decision in the Party. It is purely an internal party strife. It should be brought back to the Party for decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard the former Chief Minister, Tun Lim Yew Hock, saying to the leadership of the Party that if this is a motion to eradicate Communism, then he will vote for the motion. We here have listened to the Prime Minister making his analysis. He treated his former comrades, with whom he had fought shoulder to shoulder, as the Communist Left. The Prime. Minister has all along been working with these people, and why should he brand them as Communists? Why should he protect them instead of accusing them here today? I think this is a sort of "white" terror. We have seen the former Chief Minister using his tactics again before our leadership. He wants our leadership to make use of the same dirty tricks. We believe that our claim at present and in the future is the same. I do not understand the Secretary General's letter to the Chairman of the Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 19th of July. There is here a criticism to this effect. The Government represents the people. The Government, on behalf of the people, intends to do many unpleasant things. But we know that the people have elected us. Why did they elect us? Was it because they wanted us to do something unpleasant to them? Or whether they wanted us to sell them? I think this cannot be explained in this way, because everyone wants to retain forever a good name and not a bad name. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now want to talk about a female Member who is a member of the Central Executive Committee. Just now, Mr Speaker, if you have listened to her, she may have appeared to be reasonable. But this particular comrade of the feminine sex may not have understood the whole affair. How many cadres are there in the Party nobody knows. We know that in the Hokkien Huay Kuan the cadres elected on 30th May, 1959, have since been disqualified and withdrawn. We believe that all the Members in this Assembly are cadres. According to this, if we are not cadres, surely we would not have been candidates for the elections and the Party would not have trusted us. But the strange thing is that among the eight of us, two are not cadres of the Party. Therefore, this question has arisen out of internal party strife, and I think it should be brought back to the Parts for a decision so that the Party will be more united and can stand more firmly on its standpoint to achieve its anti-colonialist aims. 11.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has been looked up to as one of the politically advanced countries compared with many areas around it. It is a matter of regret that today, when Members of Parliament from overseas are present in this House, the P.A.P. Government should present such a pathetic spectacle and give such a classic exhibition and example of how parliamentary democracy could be abused. Sir, what has happened today is not something new. This is not the first time that Government has used Standing Orders, parliamentary democracy and the Singapore constitution, to bring party quarrels into this Chamber, and to thrash out party differences. You will remember, Sir, when the Member for Hong Lim went against the Prime Minister, we have had to sit here session after session, day after day, listening to the P.A.P. scolding and accusing ex-P.A.P. and vice-versa. And all this, Sir, is done at public expense, mind you. Secondly, today when the P.A.P. Back-benchers are defying the party leadership, we are again brought into this Chamber and asked to give a vote of confidence to the Government. We have constantly been pointing out to the Government their inefficiency, their arrogance, their undemocratic behaviour, and the damage they have done to Singapore and her economy. Sir, I am sure I can credit the P.A.P. leaders with sufficient intelligence to know that we will not give them this vote of confidence on the part that they have played, or on their past non-achievements. I also congratulate the leadership, Sir, on their ingenuity in creating a situation which they thought would corner the Opposition. They tried to make it so that we either voted for them or we would be supporting what they called the Communist Left-wing. The Prime Minister hoped, Sir, with his Mr Lion and Mr Bear fairy tale, to channel the issue to either we vote for the non-Communist Left or the Communist Left. On second thoughts, Sir, I was wondering whether this is meant only for the Opposition. Only it is also meant for the general public, to make them feel that there is no other Party or people except the Communist Left and non-Communist Left-

Order. The Speaker is seated in this Chair and not in the gallery.

I am sorry, Sir. So that the public will have to decide whether they want to side with the Government or, if they do not want to side with the Government, then they will have to side with the Communist Left. But, Sir, it must be admitted that it is now obvious from the speeches, especially those of the Back-benchers (who, if I remember rightly, without exception, called for a 51-Branch meeting) and from that call, that the real issue before the House is whether the P.A.P. leaders should convene a general meeting of the 51 Branches or not. What have we to do with it? We came here thinking that the Government wanted a vote of confidence from the House to strengthen their hand in working for the security and peace of the State of Singapore and its people. We came here prepared to support the Government in this fight against Communist subversion. But today the Prime Minister in his speech has stated categorically that the Government does not intend to do this. He has said that when there is trouble from the Communists he will hand over to the British and it is up to them to fight the Communists. Then why does the Government want a vote of confidence today? I have said before, Sir, and I say it now, that whenever the P.A.P. Government finds itself in a difficult spot they try to confuse not only the Opposition but also the public. They can no longer deny it now. The position is clearly this. Some or many of the P.A.P. Back-benchers and Party members wanted a meeting of the 51 Branches. The P.A.P. leadership refused to convene it. This issue has been clouded by the motion before the House today. With due respect to you, Sir, actually we would be voting on the issue whether we think the Government is right in not convening this meeting or whether the Back-benchers are right in demanding the meeting and the Government should convene this meeting. That was what all the speeches are about today. If we vote with the Government, then we agree that the Government is right; and if we vote against the Government, then we agree that the Back-benchers are right. Let us not be confused, Sir. We shall not be voting, as the Prime Minister's fairy tale tried to make it appear to be, on the issue whether we have confidence in a non-Communist Government or whether we would rather have Singapore handed over to the Communists. That is not the issue. We will not be voting on that. The Prime Minister tried to make it a "Heads I win, tails you lose" affair. If we vote for the Government, they win. If we vote against them, as the Prime Minister's fairy tale tried to make it, we are siding with the pro-Communist faction. So we lose. In view of this, Sir, it appears as, though it might be wise for us to abstain. But we feel very strongly that the confidence the P.A.P. Government won in 1959 no longer holds, as has been shown in the results of the by-elections in Hong Lim and Anson. The Alliance Opposition, Sir, is not at all surprised that the people of Hong Lim and Anson have rejected the P.A.P. Government. In fact, we have said it before that the people of Singapore, I repeat, Sir, Singapore, not only of Hong Lim and Anson, have lost confidence in the P.A.P. Government. And why should they not? How have they benefited during the two years of the P.A.P. government? You will recall, Sir, at the end of one year of P.A.P. Government, I tabled several questions. One of them was how many houses they had built. The answer was 125 as compared with the figures I gave - I forgot the exact figures - 3,000 odd built by the previous Government in their first year; 6,000-odd built not only by the Government, but by the whole State during that first year. During the first year of the P.A.P. Government, there were only 125 houses built. And what they have completed of S.I.T. flats, the rents are much higher than what the previous Government was charging. Unemployment has increased and this has led to increased robberies and crimes. The standard of living has gone down. The standard of education has gone down. The medical services have suffered deplorably. People have been deprived of the freedom of speech. This has now been confirmed by the Back-benchers themselves - an accusation that we have made before. Sir, there are a hundred and one legitimate reasons to prove that the electorate has lost confidence in the Government. In view of this, we have no alternative but to vote against the motion. I was amused when the Member for Bras Basah said that because it is a one man one vote system, the P.A.P. cannot adopt what she called the previous Government's "tactics". I suppose she was referring to the arrest of the subversives. But she said the P.A.P. have what she called "tricks". I do not know whether the translation was right. She called it "tricks" to deal with these people. I do not know what "tricks" she was referring to, is it the appointment of Political Secretaries and paying them $1,100 each? I do not know. She knows best what tricks she was referring to. The second one amused me more. I just happened to hear, when I came in, that she was scolded by all the others - presumably they were mostly men. May I be so bold as to venture In suggest that she was scolded by them, because she was a woman? Maybe! I say this because I happen to know that the P.A.P. Government does not believe in giving women equal privileges. On several occasions when I happened to mention equal privileges for women, the Minister for Finance mocked me and said that while he believed that all men are equal, he believed also that some men are more equal than others. As for the Member for Pasir Panjang, he gave a clear picture of what the P.A.P.'s idea of equality for women means. Equal work, equal trouble but not equal benefit. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to make one observation; many people have been wondering why the P.A.P. have released the detainees, and why they have employed them as Political Secretaries. Could it be that the previous Government had made a deplorable mistake in arresting innocent men? Could it be that the present Government have found out that they had been wrongly arrested and that injustice had been done to them; and so they have been rewarded with a good post of $1,100? People have been wondering, but today their doubts have been cleared. The Prime Minister stated very clearly that they were Communists. He admitted they were Communists. So they were rightly detained. Anyway, that does not seem to solve the problem, Sir. That deepens the mystery. If they knew they were Communists or Communist leaders or Communist friends, or whatever term they used, why then were they employed? Why then are public funds used to pay them? As this fact is public knowledge now, why are public funds still being used to pay them? The mystery seems to deepen, Sir. The Prime Minister has given the answer! The public are still wondering why this is continued after the explanation has been given. I would love to see the reaction on their faces when they read the papers tomorrow, Sir, that the Prime Minister says the reason why they were released was that the P.A.P. did not intend to take repressive measures against the Communists. Their duty is to preserve the P.A.P. They did mention that they did not intend to take repressive action against the Communists for the sake of the British. Their duty is to preserve the P.A.P. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance Opposition, Sir, may I say that the policy of the Alliance is to preserve the State even before the Party? 11.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been summoned to this sitting - I should say it is through no fault of yours - at such short notice to decide whether this Government should stay or quit. It is apparent from the speeches of those on the Government benches that there have been troubles and problems among themselves and that we have been called here today so that this Assembly can be used as an instrument by the present leaders of the Government to resolve their problems. Sir, today's sitting should actually have been held either in the People's Association's centre at Kallang Airport or in the cultural centre with perhaps a different Chairman. But we have been asked to come here today and we feel we are attending more as observers and spectators attending a conference of P.A.P. members at a P.A.P. conference. Sir, it is my view and that of my colleagues that the best place to resolve the problems faced by the P.A.P. leadership and the leaders of the Government is within the P.A.P. itself. Most of the issues brought out during the past few weeks between the P.A.P. Back-benchers and the Front-benchers are not new to us. They were brought up more than a year ago when the Hong Lim Branch of the P.A.P. submitted 16 resolutions to the P.A.P. leadership. Most of the speeches made today have nothing new in substance. I am sure we have heard them many times in this same Chamber when a year ago the Government leaders sought to vindicate themselves in the P.A.P. by bringing P.A.P. issues into this same Chamber. Sir, a year ago we pointed out that the P.A.P. leadership had departed from the spirit and manifesto of the P.A.P., and from the firm resolve and anti-colonial stand of the P.A.P. It was in June last year that the Hong Lim Branch of the P.A.P. first raised the banner of revolt against the present P.A.P. leadership when it sought rectification of the mistakes and blunders of the P.A.P. leaders within the inner confines of a P.A.P. conference. Sir, it has been a long and tortuous journey for many of us, but we are glad that we have vindicated the political questions raised in the Hong Lim resolutions during the Hong Lim by-election. We are also happy to say here today that we are gaining wider and wider support on those vital questions. Sir, it is interesting to note that it was after the catastrophic defeat of the P.A.P. leadership in the crucial Hong Lim by-election that the present pattern of conflict within the P.A.P. first unfolded itself. 00.01 a.m., 21st July, 1961. I should not try to go too much into details because we are not P.A.P. members any more. Perhaps many will join us later on this side of the House! But in the by-election in Hong Lim, we did not ask for a mandate from the people calling on the Government to quit, for it was our belief that it was not in the interest of the country to have general elections so soon after the general elections in 1959. What we did was to urge the Government to rectify its mistakes and we sought a mandate that we shall be here as watchdogs on Government's policies, that we shall support those policies which are in the interest of the people, and that we will oppose those policies which are detrimental to the interest of the people. Sir, it is our view that this Assembly must not be used as an instrument to resolve intra-party conflicts or personal conflicts other than those of a political nature. Sir, only political issues that are the subject of public controversy and of public import should be brought to this Chamber. Now that the battle for Hong Lim and Anson is over, it is high time that the P.A.P. Government settled down and did some strenuous work for the pay they have been collecting every month from the public purse to better the welfare and the livelihood of the overwhelming masses of the people. They should make an attempt to tackle many of the problems confronting us. It is not in the national interest for the Government to precipitate crisis after crisis, for it would be the poverty stricken masses and the people who would be made to suffer. Sir, there is nothing to prevent this Government from carrying on. As far as I know, no Member on the Opposition has questioned the Government's authority to carry on. Perhaps the Member for Anson has asked the Prime Minister to resign from the Party. He has not asked the Government to resign. But at today's sitting, we have been asked to give blanket approval for all Government's actions and policies, whether in the past or in the possible future. Sir, we are afraid we cannot give such blanket approval. We have been asked to give Government a blank cheque, and today we shall not give it. 00.05 a.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the time came for holding the by-election in Anson, the P.A.P. nominated its candidate, Inche Mahmud bin Awang, in his capacity as the President of the T.U.C. to contest the by-election. Since the by-election campaign started, some of the T.U.C. leaders, numbering six in all. led by Mr Lim Ching Siong, took the opportunity of raising many issues in the newspapers with the sole object of bringing about the defeat of Inche Mahmud bin Awang in the by-election. This was obvious. Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends know that Inche Mahmud bin Awang is a leader of the workers movement and a friend to them in the T.U.C. But the actions of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends were acts of treachery, because, as the Treasurer in the Anson by-election, I could see and understand very well, with my clear thinking as the Secretary of the T.U.C., the move taken by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues. They did not stop there. That was followed by eight Assemblymen who put out a joint statement in the newspapers opposing the P.A.P. Possibly they were influenced by Mr Lim Ching Siong or by the propaganda and tactics adopted by him. As a result of this, the P.A.P. held a meeting of Assemblymen at which a decision was taken and agreed to by a majority vote that Assemblymen should not issue public statements in respect of political matters. It is a matter for regret that eight Assemblymen have flouted party discipline, which is tantamount to an act of treachery towards the Party. They issued a public statement two days before Polling Day. What was the motive then behind the release of the joint statement of the eight Assemblymen and Mr Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues? Mr Speaker, Sir,I have been active in the labour movement. I have been a colleague of Mr Lim Ching Siong and the two of us together have faced hardships. I understand the tactics adopted by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends were responsible for the defeat of the P.A.P. candidate, Inche Mahmud bin Awang. He was suddenly stabbed in the back by his close friends. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to state that I wholeheartedly support the motion of the Prime Minister. 00.10 a.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the motion moved by the Prime Minister, many Members, both of the Government and of the Opposition, have expressed their views. I was a bit late for this afternoon's sitting and when I came in, I found a seat occupied by a "military officer's. He stood arrogantly and spoke as a warrior or a hero fighting for the rights of man in Singapore. At the same time, he thumped his chest over his victory in Anson, as though it was of great significance to him; but he forgot that behind his victory in Anson was an act which was condemned by all the people in Singapore. Such a dirty act resulted in his victory and his re-entry into this Chamber, but it should not be forgotten that this champion of the masses once challenged a Member to resign and when it was accepted, he fled from the by-election. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this motion the Member for Anson has proclaimed himself a hero in this Chamber. But in the Anson by-election, he adopted many mean tactics to achieve victory. On the other hand, the P.A.P. repeatedly stated in the by-election in Anson that the winning or losing of the by-election would not be an issue to the Party. If they were to lose it, they would go down honourably and cleanly; and if they were to win it, they would do so likewise. Mr Speaker, Sir, what amazes me is that the Member for Anson is making himself out to be a genuine nationalist. He has brought up issues which would result in disunity amongst the various races in Singapore. Mr Speaker, we should not forget that we the people of Singapore are today struggling for the creation of a united Malayan nation, with a single national language, a single national culture, and a single fatherland. But the Member for Anson has tried to play up communal sentiments in order to gain a seat in Anson.

Order. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary is not now on a platform of the Anson by-election! I think all his remarks are completely irrelevant to the motion. He may later on have another occasion to attack the Member for Anson for what he did in winning the by-election. But let us get back to the motion before the House.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am not speaking as though I am on an election platform. It was merely to clarify, because the Member for Anson just now thumped his chest over his victory and said indirectly that he alone is the fighter for mankind. So it is necessary for me to expose whether there is any truth in the statement made just now by the Member for Anson. However, Mr Speaker, there is close connection between his victory and the motion before us moved in the name of the Prime Minister, because we are now faced with trials and challenges from forces which are against national unity in Singapore. The Member for Anson dwelt on communalism and said that the Chinese should not forget their ancestral culture, as also on their part the Indians and the Malays, it is as clear as daylight that communal sentiments are being worked up when we are making all-out efforts to create a national culture

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary must take regard of comments from the Chair. I do not remember the Member for Anson mentioning anything about communalism in his speech in this Chamber. Let us try to keep to the rails as far as possible. Time is getting on.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, that represents the tail-piece of the election speeches made in Anson. I am not saying that you, Mr Speaker, are not giving me freedom, but in order to conserve time I will adhere to your ruling. Mr Speaker, the issue now is that the people of Singapore, who are anti-colonialists, should consolidate Left-wing unity. Mr Speaker, what is meant by "unity"? "Unity" can be interpreted in many ways. I will give a number of illustrations. Mr Speaker. For example, there are many kinds of animals living in the forest. When the forest is on fire, the animals take flight to save their skins. At that time the tiger forgets the deer; the snake forgets the frog. Although they are enemies, common interest dictates that they should flee from the fire. After the fire is over and everything is back to normal, they will then get together. What is unity to make a broom when the broom is used by people who have no real use for it? Or is unity to mix cucumber with durians in one basket, which is impossible? It is not possible for the durians and the cucumber to be put in one basket without first removing the thorns from the durians. It will not be safe for the cucumber to be mixed with the durians. Mr Speaker, I have given several definitions of unity. In attempting to seek unity, we should realise that the P.A.P. has clearly stated its stand- that it is fighting for an independent, democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya. Although we have been challenged by certain groups, we have repeatedly stated our unequivocal stand. If we take an anti-Communist stand, it means we will go into the Western bloc; if, on the other hand, we adopt a pro-Communist attitude, we will be horses for the Communists to ride on. The Prime Minister has had occasion to say that in fighting for the interests of the people of Singapore, we, as socialists and non-Communists, have repeated that what is good for the Communists may not be good for us; what is good for them may also be good for us; and what is not good for us may also be not good for them. But what is good for us, although it is bad for them, we will use in our interests even if we have to fight them. This is clear from the speeches on the policy of the Party. Now we ask ourselves, Mr Speaker, is it true that we are retreating? Suppose we are faced with four or five enemies in front and there are friends at our backs with a hammer. In trying to evade blows from the enemies, if we turn round to our friends it will mean that we are giving an opportunity to our enemies in front to hit us. Such an act is even more treacherous than stabbing from the back, because stabbing from the back means that it is an act of so-called friends who are traitors. This act gives an opportunity to our enemies to kill us. This happened with the group of people who claim to be fighters of the labour movement - Lim Ching Siong and his friends who have lulled the masses with sweet music. Lim Ching Siong and his friends are able to influence certain members of the P.A.P. with the result that these members dance to their tune. They have forgotten themselves and have started to wash dirty linen in public, which they should do within the Party, to show that they are the real fighters of the people. This also is a treacherous act committed toward the Party. Mr Speaker, in facing this problem, we should understand the real meaning of unity, and this motion has been moved by the Prime Minister not on our bended knees to the Opposition to seek their support. If the people feel that we have betrayed their trust, they will be able to judge our acts and our deeds on this motion. Briefly, Mr Speaker, in the interests of national unity, it is vital to create a single united nation with a single culture, and a single national language. I fully support the motion moved by the Prime Minister. 00.30 a.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the motion moved by the Hon. the Prime Minister, I would like to state here that if I were to support it I would be considered mad. The reason why I say so is that the motion here states that the House is asked to express its full confidence in the Government, a government which I see at that moment is a Bubor Kachang Government. The reason why I say so is that the Government, whether on the Front bench or on the Back-bench, are quarrelling in front of us. How then can we say that we will support them and give them a vote of confidence when they themselves are quarrelling among themselves? Mr Speaker, Sir, even if you agree with the motion. I do not agree to give the Government a vote of confidence.

Order. I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan must remember that the Speaker is supposed to be above all politics. I do not think it is fair to drag the Speaker into a motion of this nature.

(In Malay): It was not my purpose to ask you, Mr Speaker, to be involved in politics. But this is my view of the political situation which I must put before the House. In principle, I regret I cannot give even point one per cent of my support to the motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the new champions. I do not know whether they are new ones, but from my reading of the papers I notice they are making a lot of noise in the Assembly to hit at the Government. But tonight I can say that these people in the Assembly today are not true champions of the people. In my view, they have been wrongly chosen to sit in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, I give my sympathy to the Member for Anson who has just joined us in this Assembly. I do not like to hit out at him. But I would like to give my views on various matters raised in his speech in this Assembly. I feel the Member could not have fathomed the true feelings of the people of Singapore and the feelings of the people from U.M.N.O. if my father in the Federation is being opposed, the son would now like to take issue with the Member for Anson on matters that he has raised in this Assembly. Before he goes any further, I hope he can see ahead. Probably he cannot see whether or not there is a wall behind him. But I would urge him to look ahead. If there is a leader of a political party who says that he wishes to bring about the independence of Singapore within the jurisdiction of the United Nations, I am sorry to say. Mr Speaker, Sir, that he has forgotten this. He should always remember that although U.M.N.O. may not have many members in this Assembly, yet U.M.N.O. has a very clear voice outside the Assembly to speak to people who wish to bring independence to Singapore. We Malays-

Members have been speaking a bit loudly in this Chamber, but I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan wins the first prize! Will he please modulate his voice?

(In Malay): I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clearly stated in the Constitution of Singapore that we, the indigenous people, have certain clear rights. We are not willing to be under the administration of the United Nations, or under the tutelage of the United Nations; nor do we wish to become independent without merger with the Federation. So this is one of the views expressed by one of the Sons of Tunku Abdul Rahman on behalf of the people of the Federation of Malaya. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I come back to the P.A.P. I am amazed that after two years it is only now that I am aware that there is no democracy within the P.A.P. I do not blame the Ministers on the Front-bench. But I blame the people on the Back-benches. If indeed they know that the Party has not been practising democracy, why is it that they have tolerated it for two years until their Members rebel against the Government, whether in this Assembly or outside? I do not like to regard them as robots. I am sure it is not so in the Party, because they always speak with great pride that they have been elected by the people. Five Members are going out and it seems the party is tottering. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, after two years there now comes a statement from the Federation for a plan to bring about a merger, and it is then that we see the true state of affairs existing in the Party. When I stood up to speak about the Communists, they would hit back at me right and left. But now it is up to the people of Singapore to see whether there are any Communists within the Party. If indeed there are Communists in the People's Action Party, why is it that the Minister for Home Affairs allows these people to go free without detaining them? Why do they harbour Communists? Why do they give them salaries of $1,100 a month? Why should these people be harboured if they know that they are Communists? Why should they not arrest them and send them to Pulau Senang, or wherever it may be? The stand of the Alliance is anti-Communist. We are indeed surprised that these matters exist within the P.A.P. I really feel that if this is so, then the aims of the P.A.P. to carry out its policies and its ideology will not be achieved. Mr Speaker, when the Tunku wanted to create a Greater Malaysia or a Happy Malaysia, there arose not only from among the P.A.P. but also from among the Opposition support that the Internal Security Council should be abolished. I cannot give a guarantee, and I dare not give such a guarantee, to anyone that if the Internal Security Council is abolished from the Constitution of Singapore - perhaps you yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, will see - I do not know what will happen. If there is no internal Security Council, it would mean that the troops of the British and the Federation of Malaya cannot take a great deal of interest in the internal affairs of the State. If it is the belief of the people within the People's Action Party that we do not require British forces, that we do not require the forces of the Federation to help safeguard our security, if the Internal Security Council is abolished, then I believe, Mr Speaker. A.R.T.I.S. in its biggest form and its worst form will come into being and we cannot fight them. If there is no internal Security Council, it means that the Communists will have things their own way. Then I fear there will be bloodshed. This is totally undesirable in the State of Singapore. So. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope, and I particularly address my hope to them, that the Ministers will assume the responsibility to overcome their domestic difficulties without calling upon us to help then,. By all means, wipe out all the people within their ranks who are undesirable so that Singapore will become prosperous and peaceful. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has clarified his intention of a merger with the Federation with special emphasis on education and labour policies. But I can say that such a policy will not easily be agreed to. I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development that if the mosquito net is ridden with bed-bugs, then let the Opposition Members not be asked to help them clear these pests without their being besmirched by the blood of the bed-bugs. 00.45 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with sadness that in two years this is the first time I have failed in my duty as a whip, but that is not within my power. It is easy to whip when you have only the Front-bench and the Back-bench. But it is very difficult to use your whip when there is the Front-bench, the Back-bench and also the stab-in-the-back Back-benchers. I have been instructed by the Leader of the House that tonight's debate will be a free-for-all. Each one votes according to his conscience. So the whip is withdrawn. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention to say anything tonight, had it not been for the fact that some of our friends were trying to accuse the leaders of trying to bribe us, even to the extent of saying bribing with money, to stay in the government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health talked of parliamentary democracy, but I would have thought that, according to the rules of parliamentary democracy, anyone who disagrees with Government policy or with Government leadership should have the decency to speak opposite us. They should have crossed the Floor before they attacked the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs talked of party discipline. He said that the P.A.P. was the best organised and the best disciplined Party. That was no doubt a fact, until the statement issued by the eight Assemblymen. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my duty to draw your attention to the fact that some months ago, the Member for Pasir Panjang wrote an article in a magazine without consulting the Party Central Executive Committee saying that we should fight for complete internal self-government in our next negotiations with London. After that, as a Whip, I told him that he should have consulted the Party before deciding policy for the Party. Later on, the Member for Thomson also issued a statement with other trade unionists attacking the Party. We had an Assemblymen's meeting before Anson and we reached a decision by secret ballot that no statement should be issued by any Assemblyman to the Press on matters of policy. So if there is anyone who is fit to talk of party discipline, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs should be the last. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Member for Toa Payoh are members of a Committee of Review on party and government work. We have to admit that we realised that we had to rectify many of our mistakes both in government and in party organisation after the Hong Lim by-election, and we formed this Committee of Review to look into the mistakes and to make the necessary rectifications. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs is Joint Secretary with myself in this Committee of Review. He knows full well that we have received memoranda from all the Branches with good recommendations about intra-party democracy and about rectifying our mistakes in many affairs. In fact, an interim report has been prepared for adoption by a full Assemblymen's meeting. If that is not intra-party democracy, then I do not know what intra-party democracy means. Why could they not wait for another 48 hours to issue the statement? Why did they talk of intra-party democracy when we were fighting the battle in Anson? Why did they not raise the question of intra-party democracy then? Why did they not support the Member for Hong Lim when he raised the question of intra-party democracy during the Hong Lim by-election? If they know and if they were convinced that there was no intra-party democracy, they should have crossed the Floor with the Member for Hong Lim. Instead, they spoke solidly behind us during the by-election. They said how good the Party was. For two years we have never heard a word about intra-party democracy in this House. The statement about intra-party democracy came only after our Chairman had announced our acceptance in principle of a merger. That was in the Hokkien Huay Kuan. I remember the Member for Hong Lim also raised the question of political detainees in this House. I cannot remember any of our Back-benchers having spoken on that motion. There is a Chinese proverb that when the tree falls, all the monkeys run away.

So they are monkeys!

I think it was a big mistake on the part of some of our leaders to say that we were going to resign if we were defeated in Hong Lim. That shook many of our chaps. They thought the ship was sinking.

The rats started to run!

They try to desert the ship, but still cling with one hand in case it does not sink. It is not sinking, and I assure you that, as a loyal member of the Party, I will sink with the ship when it does sink.

If it is sinking, what can you do?

The Member for Choa Chu Kang said that we did not invite the eight Assemblymen to attend a meeting to discuss the Prime Minister's resignation. What I would like to know is whether the eight Assemblymen had invited us to attend their midnight meeting of conspiracy. An hon. Member: Shame!

I come to the Member for Toa Payoh who has accused our leaders of trying to bribe with money to keep them in power and to keep us together with them so that they can be in power. It is a great insult to the integrity of all of us who still stick to the Party. I think they should know by now that the P.A.P. does not believe in bribing anyone. Perhaps they had been persuaded to desert the ship with some good promises. The Member for Cairnhill said that his Party was ready for a general election any time, anywhere. I would have thought that he had learnt a lesson in the Anson by-election.

Learn your lesson first!

Up till now, I have not heard any of our friends answering the statement made by the Prime Minister. I would have thought that many of our party affairs could have been discussed in our Party conference after this motion is taken. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have heard the speeches made by our so-called friends. These reveal that there is, in fact, an attempt to capture the Party and to overthrow the Government. If they are really honest and if they are really dissatisfied with the Government, I think they should vote against this motion. 00.58 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it hurts me more than it angers me to see a complete degeneration among our leaders. Sir, I have never expected that these leaders of mine and my comrades in the Party would, within such a short period, degenerate to this level to twist and turn and distort facts. Sir, the motion before the House is apparently a very simple one. It seeks the confidence of this House in the Government. But the intention behind the motion and its implications are not clear, It is our duty as elected representatives of the people to remember now more than ever before that the interests of the people are paramount and not those of individual political leaders who have pawned their principles in desperation. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our responsibility to discuss dispassionately the motion and put the underlying issues in the proper perspective so that the people may correctly judge them. We must expose any plot to confuse and mislead the people. Sir, there are two basic questions we must answer honestly. 1. For whom is the confidence vote sought; and 2. For what purpose is it sought? The Government referred to in the motion technically means the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, who is the Secretary-General and the leader of the People's Action Party. All the Ministers are in the Central Executive Committee of the Party and they constitute a dominant majority. For all practical purposes, therefore, the P.A.P. Cabinet means the leadership of the P.A.P. In other words, Sir, today in this House, a vote of confidence is asked for the leadership of the P.A.P. That is the basic position that we must make clear. The Prime Minister, Sir, in his speech has brought out three points which I consider to be major. He said, one, the six trade unionists and the eight Assemblymen oppose merger; two, there is a Communist move to capture the Party and to capture the Government; and three, the overriding smear that these people termed Communists are actually friends of the British. Sir, I think it is too silly and absurd a remark to make, that these people who are called Communists are also colonial stooges, and therefore it does not warrant any serious consideration. I do not see how the Prime Minister seeks to make it look congruous by saying, on one side, these are Communist front men and on the other side they are friends of the British.

You have said it.

But to understand the behaviour of the P.A.P. leadership, it is necessary to be aware of the situation in which they find themselves. Today, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership find themselves, one, internally, with a complete loss of confidence of the majority in the Party, and two, externally, completely alienated from the working class and the middle class and almost all strata of society. Sir, an awareness of this failure of the leadership to command the support of the people and the comrades in the Party has caused a great sense of desperation, and desperate men are now preparing to act in desperate ways. Sir, the motion before the House is a preparation for a purge. Once the sham confidence is obtained, it is possible that some people will be arrested in the hope of provoking the workers, which, in turn, they hope, will provide an excuse for a complete clean-up. Sir, it is clear that the Communist smear and the anti-merger smear are but parts of a plot to prepare anti-democratic and oppressive measures. The transparency of this smear is obvious, its objective of preparing the way for a purge is clear. Sir, we are not unused to these smears. It is not the first time that people like Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan, S. Woodhull and the rest in the unions have been called Communists. I think the people are aware how the previous Government, under the leadership of the Member for Cairnhill, called even our present Prime Minister a Communist. Smears are easy to be created. The calling of names can be done quite easily, but this does not resolve the problems. The question of the anti-merger smear. Sir, the six trade unionists have issued up to date but four statements. There is not one single word, one single phrase, or one single sentence which says we oppose merger. I shall be much obliged, Sir, if the Prime Minister can quote any part of their statements or any part of any one of their statements, or for that matter, any speech made by any one of us which contains a phrase or a sentence opposing merger. The big lie is that we have made minimum constitutional demands for 1963.

Order. I am not quite certain whether I have heard the word "lie" being used with reference to a Member of the Assembly. If the word "lie" has been so used, it must be withdrawn.

I used that word, but I do not think it was used with reference to any of the Members here, unless any Member constitutes it to be a reference to him. I said the big lie is that we have made minimum constitutional demands for 1963 and have called for-

Order. My understanding of that remark was that it had reference to the Prime Minister's speech. If it did not have any reference to the Prime Minister's speech, then, of course, it is in order. But will the Member assure me that it had no reference to the Prime Minister's speech?

I withdraw the word lie", Sir, I continue and further, that we have called for anti-colonial measures in order to block merger. Sir, our position on this is clear and simple. 1963 is a concrete obligation insofar as constitutional talks go. It could be superseded by merger, but surely vague talk of merger cannot be regarded as superseding the obligations of 1963. Therefore, Sir, we have taken up positions for 1963 while keeping an open mind on merger and confederation. On the question of merger, we state categorically that we do not oppose merger, merger in the sense it is a full-fledged merger, in the sense that Singapore will become an additional State in the Federation of Malaya. Insofar as confederation is concerned, in principle, it is acceptable but it is premature to talk about it now because nobody knows the details. The P.A.P. leadership on 9th June in the Hokkien Huay Kuan made a statement to the effect that we completely support the Tunku's Mighty Malaysia plan. It was the Prime Minister who said, "I support a hundred per cent the Mighty Malaysia plan." Unfortunately, at the moment, they say, "We welcome it in principle." We have no quarrel with anybody who say they welcome the confederation plan in principle. There is no use talking of details now because nobody knows the details. Therefore, Sir, I repeat here that any talk that the six unionists or the dissident Members of the Assembly are people who oppose merger is a basic distortion of facts. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the four anti-colonial measures demanded by the six trade unionists and endorsed by the eight Assemblymen were inconsistent with the objects of the P.A.P. Sir, I believe he does not have a mandate to say this, because I am quite prepared to take him on - or for that matter, any other Minister or Party official who says that the four anti-colonial measures recommended are not consistent with the objects of the P.A.P. Sir, we subscribe without qualification to the objects of the P.A.P. as contained in clause 2 of the Party Constitution. Let not the people be misled by further smears. The four demands: one, the release of detainees - I ask the leadership of the P.A.P. whether it is consistent with the objects of the P.A.P. to release the detainees; two, the unification of the trade union movement - is it or is it not consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.; three, the granting of citizenship rights to genuine anti-colonialists - is it or is it not consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.; and four, the request to allow freedom of the Press, freedom of association and assembly - is that consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.? In this connection, I wish to elaborate on one point freedom of assembly. Sir, there was a time in Singapore - although that time was perhaps worse than it is now when - nevertheless trade unions could hold general meetings in places like the Badminton Hall, the Victoria Memorial Hall without a police permit so long as the organisation was a registered one. If the meeting was called for the attendance of its members, no permit was necessary. But today, a permit is necessary to hold a meeting. Why? Sir, I can quote examples of this. We have quoted examples of this on numerous occasions. It is not my intention to take any more of your time. Sir, but if and when further examples are necessary, we can list them down. Sir, everybody knows now that not all is well with the P.A.P. The Government Benches are divided. The Party is faced with a serious crisis. Instead of sorting out the internal differences first, the leadership has come here. This is a blatant attempt by the leadership to bring internal party differences to let the Assembly decide. This is an attempt to make a decision of this House binding on the Party. Sir, this is an attempt to seek the support of the Opposition the reactionary Right, and the communal groups to carry on the fight against those loyal Party members who are denouncing their leadership. In this connection, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said that those of us who talked of intra-party democracy went to the extent of releasing a letter to the Press before the by-election. Sir, I do not doubt the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs to read the letter and the covering statement and to understand the reasons given for the release. A letter is sent by eight Assemblymen, dated one Sunday. On Monday morning, the Chairman of the Party received that letter. The letter says, "Please open a 51-Branch meeting to discuss the situation arising out of the six unionists' statement, to discuss merger, and to discuss intra-party democracy." On Monday night, Mr C. V. Devan Nair went to the University of Malaya to attend a forum, and committed the Party on the detainees' issue and on other issues raised in the letter. On Tuesday, we received a letter from the Chairman saying, "We will call a meeting at a future suitable date." I think it was on a Tuesday night at an Anson by-election rally that Mr Devan Nair again talked of the matters we had raised in the letter. Sir, I believe any fool ought to know that we had to come out with a letter publicly stating our position clearly to the people. We did not want to publish this letter. If it had been our intention to publish this letter in the Press, we could have done it in the first place. We said. "No, it is a confidential letter. Discuss." We got a reply saying, "Yes. We will discuss." In the meantime, the leadership committed the whole Party. Sir, there is no extremely grave situation today in Singapore. The leadership of the P.A.P. is facing a grave situation inside the Party. But surely the P.A.P. leadership does not constitute Singapore. We say we have no confidence in the leadership of the Ministers, i.e., the leadership of the Party. The Party rank and file have no confidence in the leadership. The leadership have abandoned their principles and deviated to the Right. This is a question that should be discussed inside the Party. On the one hand, Sir, the rank and file have been denied the right to discuss the conduct of the leadership, and on the other, attempts are made to force us to express confidence in the leadership in this House. By any standards, Sir, this is base political trickery. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now an open secret that the sincerity of the Party leaders is questioned within the Party. The Party Branches have no confidence in the leadership, and the leadership does not reflect the views of the majority in the Party. These are facts. Let the leadership deny this. Let the leadership have the courage to call a 51-Branch meeting. Sir, the leadership of the P.A.P. is responsible only to the Party. With all due respect, Sir, to the integrity of this House, I must say that the leadership of the Party cannot be tried here. Let all those non-P.A.P. members here not imagine themselves to be the functionaries of the P.A.P. This House is not a branch office of the P.A.P. Neither is it the P.A.P. headquarters and I am sure, Sir, your respected and honourable self will be unwilling to play the role of a P.A.P. Chairman. The call made by the eight Assembly Members for a conference of the Central Executive Committee and the 51-Branch Executives has still not been answered by the leadership. This call is being repeated practically by all the Branches. The rank and file demand a conference. The cry for intra-party democracy is echoed by the majority in the Party. Yet the leadership has seen fit to ignore what is just and moral, but has come here to ask the Opposition to give it a vote of confidence. Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Members opposite are not the P.A.P. They are not card-carrying members of the P.A.P. They do not have the moral authority to express confidence or otherwise in the leadership of a political Party which is faced with a domestic crisis. Sir, the fight is not between what are termed the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. The fight is one of democracy in the Party set-up. The struggle within the Party, Sir, is one between those loyal to the ideals of the Party and the leadership which has fundamentally deviated from this. It is a fight between those who resolutely stand on principles on which the P.A.P. was overwhelmingly elected by the people in May 1959 and the leaders of the Party who have sold out the people. Sir, ours is an intra-party fight against the leaders who have betrayed the confidence of the people. In this connection, how does the grave situation arise? I say to the Ministers: You have done enough harm to the people. Please do not provoke their temper. The responsibility of the leadership is to seek to resolve internal party differences within the Party in a democratic manner. It is the business of the leadership to answer charges, facing them inside the Party, and not ignore those who constitute the P.A.P. and run to the reactionary forces in the Opposition - the S.P.A. and the like for a mandate to deceive the people. Why has the leadership no courage to hold democratic discussions within the Party? Why has the leadership not sought to resolve the differences inside the Party? Why has the leadership not convened a meeting of the 51 Branches? Sir, immediately after the Hong Lim by-election, the Party was faced with a major crisis created by the leadership - the Government wanted to resign. This question was discussed at a conference of the 51 Branches. The conference rejected the proposal to resign. Subsequently a decision was taken to rectify the mistakes of the leadership, to fight the Anson by-election, hold another similar conference after Anson to review the Anson by-election results, and to chart the future. The mistakes were not rectified. The leadership further committed the Party without a mandate. The Anson electorate rejected the Party. Yet today when a call is made for the convening of this conference, the leadership keeps silent. Sir, there have been insinuations in some of the speeches made by the Front Benchers. All the criticisms coming now are not new to them. They have heard of them before. Sir, the cry for intra-party democracy has been inside the P.A.P. ever since the Party came into office. Everyone of us here knows this is so. They say these are all new. The call to release the detainees is not new. The call to unify the trade union movement is not new. Yet, if the leadership thinks fit to smear, we are quite prepared to sit down and listen. But we shall not degenerate to the level of calling them names. Sir, the leadership has one remarkable ability, and the one man who specialises in it is the Minister for Culture, in calling names. Today, and a few days before, the talk has been of the Communist Left and the non-Communist Left. Two weeks ago it was the stand of the national Left, meaning, of course, the P.A.P. leadership. Sir, the national Left always reminds me of the nationalist Left in Germany and Italy, Hitler's and Mussolini's nationalist Left which had very significant Fascist tendencies. Sir, this name-calling is becoming farcical. One day we are lunatic Left. Another day we are professional political agitators. Then one day we become fireside revolutionaries, then beer-hall revolutionaries, revolutionary lambs; what others?

Never reactionary?

Never reactionary. But colonialist stooges, the British colonialist stooges. Joke of all jokes! Sir, my point principally is this. When there is no confidence in the leadership within the P.A.P., why come to this House to seek a vote of confidence from the Opposition? Is it the intention of the leadership to make a decision of this House binding on the Party? The Whip, Sir, has just now said that there will be a meeting called of the 51 Branches after we have taken a decision here. They want to make this decision binding on the Party. Surely, Sir, the first thing to do is to resolve the internal differences within the party organisation, and then, if necessary, seek a vote of confidence in the legislature. A decision of the party conference is binding on the parliamentary group of the Party. But the decision of this Assembly cannot be binding on the Party. Sir, I challenge the leadership here and now to have the courage to convene a meeting of the 51 Branches and put to them a vote of confidence motion on the leadership. Sir, the leadership, having lost the confidence of the majority in the Party, and having betrayed the people, now seeks to confuse and intimidate the people. The Prime Minister talks in terms of a test of strength between the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. The six unionists are smeared as being anti-merger. The people are intimidated with talks of the "many unpleasant and awkward things the Government will have to do in order to maintain peace and order". These are but cheap smears. The people of Singapore have not forgotten similar utterances of the former Chief Minister. The people have not forgotten the ruthless actions taken by the Lim Yew Hock Government in the name of maintaining peace and order. But it is a pity, Sir, that the present leadership of the P.A.P. has forgotten the political fate of the S.P.A. and the Liberal Socialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, we who are dissatisfied and disgusted with the leadership of the Government and the Party, are forced by the manoeuvres of the leaders to take this stand today. 1.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a bit late in the day to have a lively debate. But the rapidity with which events have moved during the last few weeks have been as breath-taking as they have been confusing. After two years of tranquillity and stability under the P.A.P. Government, we are once more plunged into an atmosphere of political crisis. Mr Speaker, Sir, that this crisis should have coincided with the re-entry into this Chamber of the Member for Anson and his re-emergence into politics after a permanent retirement is, I think, purely coincidental, and I think it only fair that he should be absolved from any blame in this respect. I believe, Sir, that the present crisis has been brought about as a result of too many people trying to be too clever. The Prime Minister earlier in the debate outlined the forces and counter-forces responsible for the present crisis. It is a vast jig-saw puzzle. Though we have managed to fit many pieces together, that is, enough to make sense out of the strange and extraordinary events of the last few weeks, there are possibly still many pieces missing, and with luck and assiduity we hope to be able to find the other pieces - if not us, then maybe those befuddled and over-clever plotters who are now up the gum tree. Mr Speaker, Sir, one thing is clear. Somebody is up the gum tree, and it clearly is not the P.A.P. It may be the British. It may be, as the Member for Thomson anticipated, the beer-hall revolutionaries who had hoped to manipulate the British but who in fact have been outwitted by the British. So, Sir, in the not too distant future we shall know who is up the gum tree, when sooner or later - and I think it will be sooner - anxious cries of distress come from up the branches. The beer-hall revolutionaries may have been beguiled by the British into attacking and betraying their Party and comrades in the P.A.P. in the Anson by-election in the belief that once the P.A.P. has been got rid off, or captured, the revolutionary lambs can gambol gaily with the wily British lion. Neither I nor my colleagues know exactly what the British lion will do once the revolutionary sheep start running all over the place. It may be that the lion will, like an indulgent shepherd, allow itself to be bearded in its den for a while, but let me add that the old British lion's beard is tougher than beards recently sprouted. It may be that the wily lion may want to find out how many revolutionary lambs there are in the fold before its thoughts turn to more practical purposes - such as making mutton chops for lunch out of gambolling lambs. For their information, may I give two recent news items which may or may not be of interest to them? There was a radio programme over the B.B.C. last night discussing the situation in Singapore. After outlining the possible challenge to the P.A.P., and the possible ouster of the P.A.P., the commentator gave it as his opinion that the British would not intervene in case the P.A.P. withdrew from the political arena. This may be a source of delight, I hope, to the gambolling revolutionaries. But as against this, may I also draw attention to another report in the London Observer which says that the constitution might be suspended - which means, as far as I can see, mutton chops for lunch. In any case, Sir, we are not interested how the sheep and the lion get on. What we are interested in is the future of the P.A.P. Government and the aims and policies for which it stands, and more important, the establishment of an independent, democratic, non-Communist socialist Malaya. Our primary concern is with the lives and destinies of the 1,500,000 people who trusted us, and whatever happens we are not going to sell them out either to the British plotters or the beer-hall revolutionaries who have been duped by the British. It is our intention to put to the people the whole truth so that with, their support and trust we can bring to a successful conclusion the fight for an independent, democratic, non-Communist socialist Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, though we lost an election in Anson we are happy because our hands are clean. Our hands are not stained by the blood of colleagues we have betrayed. One of our Political Secretaries-and for the information of the Member for Cairnhill, who is very interested in salaries, as far as I know, that Political Secretary is still being paid a salary - at a forum in the University of Malaya sneered that a wounded P.A.P. Goliath limped out of Hong Lim to meet the sling shots of David, who, for your information, Sir, happens to be also the Member for Anson. Yes, Sir, it is true that the P.A.P. Goliath limped out of Hong Lim. But it was not the sling shots of David that it met, but those of another Goliath that also limped out of Hong Lim - the Lim Ching Siong Goliath. That is what the Political Secretary forgot to tell those people who attended the forum at the University of Malaya. There were two Goliaths, both equally wounded, but with this difference. Though the P.A.P. Goliath was badly mauled in Hong Lim, it went to fight honourably in Anson. But what of the Lim Ching Siong Goliath, who was also mauled and wounded? The fact that this Goliath, which fought side by side with the P.A.P., was able to be at large in Hong Lim, was due to one thing - that we, the P.A.P., never let down or disavow our friends. If we make a promise, we will keep it, whatever the merits or otherwise of that promise. We kept that promise, but the Lim Ching Siong Goliath limped out of Hong Lim ostensibly to fight side by side with the P.A.P. Goliath but, in fact, to join David to betray a comrade in Anson and in so doing reduced itself to the proportions of a dwarf. It secured a victory for David - and we are not blaming David for availing himself of the generous assistance given to him. At least it may be said of him that he came out openly as our political opponent. But not so the Lim Ching Siong Goliath. He and his friends were ready to betray the Party and the Government with which they were openly associated. Mr Lim, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull remained as Political Secretaries while openly indulging in activities calculated to bring about the defeat of the P.A.P. candidate who also happened to be the President of the T.U.C. and the S.T.C. These then are the great leaders, men of upright character. Let me say, Sir, that a friend of mine told me that even among gangsters there is some honour. When two gangsters get together to fight another gangster, as long as they fight the other gangster, they observe a minimum of honour and a certain code of ethics, one of which is that you do not stab your friend in the back until you have disposed of your common enemy. But never, even among gangsters, do you reduce yourself to the level of sticking a dagger into your own comrade when he calls out for help and thereby assisting your enemy. In any country, Sir, whether it is socialist, Communist or capitalist, when a person disagrees with a government with which he is associated or by whom he is employed to advise and assist, it is the ordinary decent practice for him to resign from office before publicly opposing and fighting the government. But obviously these Political Secretaries, these gentlemen, are out to establish new standards of political morality. Betrayal of the Government and Party colleagues they are associated with are presumably things to be proud of. What is even worse, Sir, is that they deluded eight of our Assemblymen into joining in the betrayal. Some of these Assemblymen came out with us for four weeks, I think, to canvass for the P.A.P. candidate in Anson. They came with us telling the voters to vote for our candidate, the P.A.P. candidate. And yet, the day before Polling Day, they came out with a letter under the pretence that they had been provoked into publishing it. If they had been provoked, they could have still waited for 24 hours. It was quite clear that what was happening was that the present Member for Anson looked like losing, and it therefore became necessary for the six trade unionists and for the dupes in the P.A.P. ranks to be mobilised to throw in their weight in open intervention in favour of our opponent in Anson. We know very well that at the last minute certain unionists were openly canvassing for votes for our opponent in Anson. Sir, some of these Assemblymen may be thinking that it is all great fun playing at revolutionaries. But they should know what they are in for. If they are not Communists, they are going to be dupes. I suggest to them that they read what is in store for those who allow themselves unknowingly to be used as dupes. There is a book called Revolutionary Catechism which was written by a young Russian revolutionary called Sergei Nechayev. His work was greatly admired by Lenin who, though repudiating many of the tenets of the catechism, at least made some of it the basis of his strategy and tactics on how to carry out a revolution. With your permission, Sir, I will just read a few extracts. He says: `A good revolutionary is tyrannical towards himself. The revolutionary must be tyrannical towards others. All the emotions that move human beings (things like loyalty, friendship), all the soft and enervating feelings and kinship - love, friendship, gratitude and honour - must give way to a cold and single-minded passion for revolution.' Then he goes on to describe what to do with comrades. `When a comrade is in danger [and it is just as well for some of our colleagues who have been duped by other men into betraying our comrades for them to remember this injunction by Nechayev] it may be necessary to determine whether he is expendable. The decision must not be arrived at on the basis of sentiment; only the eventual success of the revolution has any importance at this juncture.' 1.55 a.m.

Then he described the various groups of men that he could use as dupes. He named six, but two would be of some interest. `The third group consists of people in high positions, remarkable neither for their intelligence nor their energy, but who have wealth, connections, influence and power as a result of their position. We must blackmail them, ferret out their dirty secrets and make them slaves. In this way, their power, their position, their influence and their wealth become an inexhaustible treasure and a precious asset in our adventure.' Then there is the fifth group who can also be used as dupes, and they are also equally expendable. May I suggest that some of the beer-hall revolutionaries pay heed to this? `The fifth group comprises doctrinaires, conspirators, revolutionaries, those who orate away at meetings or on paper. They must be constantly driven into ambiguous positions, (that is, get them to betray their friends. That is an ambiguous position.) They must be compelled to come out into the open and assume real and dangerous tasks (that might be the next step, the next commitment.) When the revolution is over, the majority of these will disappear, but of the rest we shall make genuine revolutionaries.'. So to those who want to play at revolution with dedicated revolutionaries. I suggest they read the "Revolutionary Catechism" of Nechayev because, at least, they would know what is in store for them when the real revolutionaries have decided that these people have outlived their usefulness. In fact, getting the tenderfoot revolutionaries to betray their friends is part of the technique of commitment. At least, under the Communist technique, if somebody wants to join the movement, they get them to do something which would commit them and thereafter there is no retreat. In fact, part of the act of commitment is to get people to do things which outrage their sense of honour, decency and which go against their conscience; and once the unfortunate waverers have been confused and persuaded into betrayal of friends and colleagues, then all self-respect is lost and all lines of retreat are cut off. Sir, what was all this betrayal in aid of? It now turns out that all this betrayal was unwittingly to aid the super designs of the British. Let me state here, Sir, that I do not for one moment believe that Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends were consciously aiding and abetting the designs of the British. Our opinion of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends is that they are not pro-colonialists, Right-wingers or even opportunists. I have no doubt they believe sincerely in the things in which they believe. We say that we in the P.A.P. stand for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. But what has happened is that Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends had hoped to manipulate the British. But as things have turned out, they have been manipulated by the British in the hope that they would come into open conflict with the P.A.P. and, if necessary, destroy the P.A.P. We in the P.A.P. might have fallen into this trap had we not been able to free ourselves of the ideological blinkers which obviously have been the driving purpose behind the thinking of Mr Lim and his friends. Since our defeat in Hong Lim, when the bridge between us and Mr Lim Ching Siong grew wider, our first belief was that all the manoeuvrings were an attempt by pro-Communist elements to coerce the P.A.P. leadership into providing a favourable climate for the growth of Communist forces. But we too have read the Communist theory and practice on united fronts. We have read how a united front should be tolerated by Communists only insofar as the non-Communist leadership was manipulable. For two years, the P.A.P. Government has steadfastly refused to be manipulated and we knew that the pro-Communist elements were getting fed up with us. Our initial analysis was that many of their manoeuvres after our defeat in Hong Lim, though rather irritating, were but usual manoeuvres to force the P.A.P. to steer off course. After all, these manoeuvres have been going on in the Party for many years and for us it has become a matter of routine to deal with these little pressures. When on 2nd June, the six trade Unionists came out with a statement supporting the P.A.P. in Anson but asking the P.A.P. to fight for full internal self-government, we were a little angry but regarded this as no more than an aggressive manoeuvre to get the P.A.P. to depart from its line of independence through merger. When the six trade unionists and Political Secretaries issued this statement asking us to fight for full internal self-government when constitutional talks are started, we were not consulted, though what they asked was a complete reversal of what they and the P.A.P. had stood for for years. Anyway, we dismissed this as another manoeuvre to make the P.A.P. leadership uncomfortable. However, we were reassured by the fact that the six trade unionists and their 43 unions had endorsed full support for the P.A.P. in Anson and extolled the P.A.P. as the leading anti-colonial force. However, the Party Chairman on 9th June came out with a statement that the P.A.P. was going to fight for nothing less than independence through merger in 1963. It was no more than a strong and categorical reaffirmation of what has always been the P.A.P.'s stand. Also the thawing of opinion in the Federation about taking in Singapore had convinced us that merger was now practical politics. We expected that this categorical statement of intentions would be well received by the six trade unionists who had for some time been calling into question our anti-colonial sentiments. Instead of a favourable reception, the six trade unionists and their friends came out with a vicious and open attack against the P.A.P. leadership and its reaffirmation of the policy of merger. We did not then realise why they were so bitter towards merger. We could not then understand their repeated demand that we publish the details of merger, even though we for our own part reassured them that we had no details about merger or even super-merger. All that had happened was that the political units concerned - that is, the Federation, Singapore, Borneo, and so on - had more or less indicated that they were ready to endorse in principle the idea of a super-merger. The P.A.P. Government said that it endorsed super-merger in principle if that would speed up merger between Singapore and the Federation. We could not disclose details, because there were no details. What puzzled us was this reversal on merger by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends. One would have thought that the Communists themselves would have welcomed a merger, if only to establish Communism on a pan-Malayan basis. Even more inexplicable was the publication by the six unionists, not long after Dr Toh's statement on merger, of four demands - the release of detainees, the granting of citizenship to certain individuals closely connected with Mr Lim Ching Siong, the unification of trade unions and greater freedom of speech, assembly, and so on. Sir, our understanding of the situation was that were the P.A.P. to act on these demands - that is, on the demand, say. of the release of detainees - then a constitutional crisis could be created leading to a situation where the Government might be confronted with the prospect of resignation, depending upon the reaction of both the Federation and the British. At least that was our expectation. And yet the six trade unionists repeatedly asked us and in fact mobilised support to ensure that we did not resign. Now this was the puzzle. Why then were the six trade unionists suddenly, after the announcement of merger, asking us to do things which, in the normal course of events, could lead to the resignation of the Government? That was the puzzle. And again we thought, well, this is another obscure manoeuvre on the part of the pro-Communist elements to embarrass the P.A.P. leadership. In fact, in an editorial in Petir, we asked the unionists bluntly whether they wanted the Government to resign as a result of acting on their four immediate demands. Strangely enough, all we got was an evasive reply saying that the P.A.P. leadership had always been talking of resignation and that if it resigned the unionists could not be held responsible. Somehow they evaded the question. Why? Because up to 9th June, the whole resources of their propaganda and manipulations were to see that the P.A.P. stayed in power. But when on 9th June, the Chairman of the Party announced that there was going to be a merger, the same unionists were forcing us to do things which sooner or later must lead to a constitutional crisis, or to our resignation. All this was puzzling. Somehow we could not explain it. It was completely out of character. This was not what they had been doing for many years. Then just before Polling Day, Mr Lim and his friends opened fire against the P.A.P. and openly supported Mr Marshall in the Anson by-election. It became clear to us then that what the six unionists and their friends were out to do was to bring about the defeat of the P.A.P. Their last-minute intervention in Anson, through eight P.A.P. Assemblymen, was the act that helped the pieces of the puzzle to fall into a pattern which suddenly explained to us what it was all about. It dawned on us that our analysis was all wrong, that the actions of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends could not be explained away as the kind of manoeuvres they had indulged in all these years inside the P.A.P.

Hear, hear!

On the face of it, it suggested a recklessness on the part of Mr Lim and his friends which could, so we thought, lead them to disaster. And if the P.A.P. resigned or the Constitution was suspended, then the Communist elements would be the first to suffer. Whatever the defects of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends, they are not reckless men. They are not men who make calculations on pure intuition and guesswork. So we had to look for the key piece in the puzzle. It had to be an analysis which explained all the facts, which gave rationality to what appeared to be the reckless behaviour of Mr, Lint Ching Siong and his friends. The key piece, it turned out, was the British. Sir, there is a short story by G. K. Chesterton where the detective almost failed to solve the murder mystery simply because he had overlooked one suspect - the postman. The postman is taken so much for granted that no suspicion is aroused by the fact that he visited the murdered man's place. Similarly with the British. We were so preoccupied with thinking that this was a manoeuvre between the non-Communist P.A.P. and the Communist elements that we forgot that the British too-the postman-were somewhere around.

2.14 a.m. Anyway, Sir, the Prime Minister has sketched out for you the role the British have played in all this. Now all the pieces fall into place. Mr Lim and his friends were not being reckless in working for the downfall of the P.A.P. leadership, simply because they had managed to persuade the British that they could - and we know for a fact - with the assistance of certain "young turks" take over the Government and the Party. Mr Lim and his friends had, I presume, some assurance that if they took over or if they created a new united front, nothing would happen. In fact, Sir, I may tell you this. When it looked as if the split between the P.A.P. and the so-called trade unionists was becoming more acute and growing wider, the editor of one of the English Sunday papers came to see me as mediator. He asked, "Why should the Left drift apart? Can't something be done?" I said, "Well, it is very difficult because since then they have made four new demands - internal self-government, the release of detainees, and so on - which are all completely contrary to our policy." For example, over the case of the release of the detainees, obviously there must be some crisis. This editor told me, with half a smile, obviously knowingly, "Raja, I think you don't know much because these boys [i.e. the unionists] have a good pipeline with the U.K. Commission." At that time it meant nothing. I took it as just one of those things. But after our defeat in Anson, when Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends, for no rhyme or reason, went all out to secure defeat for the P.A.P. with which they were openly associated and were prepared to brand themselves publicly as betrayers and traitors - nobody can overlook that fact - then we felt that the reason why they were moved to commit a gross act of betrayal was that somehow or other they had been deluded by the British into believing that betraying the P.A.P. did not matter; they might suffer humiliation or lose the respect of many members of the Party, but a bigger stake was involved. Therefore, Mr Lim and his friends were deluded by the British into opposing merger because, somehow, they had been led to believe that merger was something which had been signed, sealed and delivered, which was a sell-out of them, and that the P.A.P. was somehow in cahoots with the Tengku to sell out Mr Lim and his friends. Secondly, that if the P.A.P. could not release the detainees, then the British were prepared to release them and they could find another alternative type of government or Party which would be more liberal about these things. They felt that after the P.A.P. had lost Anson, that defeat could then provide the necessary fuel to oust the present leadership of the P.A.P. Government and the Party. The immediate plan was for the removal of the Prime Minister, and the whole fury of the attack was concentrated on one individual. Somehow it was believed that if one individual was removed, the whole organisation, the whole party, the whole machinery could be reformed. There was a purpose behind it. First, for Prime Minister, they could put in somebody else. Many names were mentioned - Dr Goh, Dr Toh. After three months they would say, "Well, there was not enough intra-party democracy. Out with Dr Toh." Then Dr Goh. "Out with Dr Goh." One by one. Then somehow other patterns fitted in. Why were they pressing for the granting of citizenship to certain people? If the design was this, then probably the Prime Minister could be pushed out and challenged to an election in Tanjong Pagar. Then somebody who had not got citizenship but who had great aspirations and who had probably managed to sell himself to Lord Selkirk as just a liberal Communist or a Liberal-Socialist would then contest if he could get citizenship. Then when the next leader of the Party, Dr Toh, was pushed out, a big offensive would be mounted - "No, there is not enough democracy in the Party. You (Dr Toh) must go." Then somebody else if he got citizenship would stand for election. In that way the hope was that perhaps in the course of time the Front-benches could be filled with new leaders who, at the moment, cannot get into the Assembly, either because they have not got citizenship or because of some other reason. Anyway, it is quite clear, and we know for a fact, that there have been in our Party for the last two or three months young turks plotting, manipulating, arguing who is to be Prime Minister, who is to be the Minister for Finance and so on. Some of these men, I think, have been duped into believing that they were doing the right thing. But there are five persons who are far more serious about revolution than any of us are. Therefore, Sir, we have today reached a situation where a lot of things have become clearer. A lot of the antics of and betrayals by Mr Lim and his associates are not so lunatic and reckless as they look because they have been led to believe that nothing untowards would happen. Sir, the drama is not yet finished. This exposure now presents the British and Mr Lim with a dilemma - who will betray whom? Who is up the gum tree and how will be come down without running into disaster? Anyway, Sir, we of the P.A.P. will make our own arrangements and manipulate and manoeuvre as we think fit. But Mr Lim and his friends can thank us for one thing - that if we had been wrong, if we had not seen - what this manoeuvre was all about, then we might have been forced into a clash with Mr Lim and his friends. Fortunately we did not fall into the trap and we hope we will never fall into the trap or be made dupes of by the British. 2.24 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been here since 2.30 yesterday afternoon - only 12 hours, Mr Speaker, but by your grace we have been allowed outside this Chamber for one hour in order that we might be more fortified to come and listen to the troubles and woes of the P.A.P., the Party in power. We have been told about dupes and people who are duped. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite innocent in politics. When people say something, I believe them. I take everything that is said at its face value. I do not analyse it in the way the Minister for Culture analyses it and reads into it things that are not read into by normal persons. Sir, when I received the motion, "That this House expresses its confidence in the Government", I was a little uncertain as to what exactly it meant. The motion, as it stood, inevitably meant that this Assembly was being called because the public interest demanded it and that, therefore, a situation existed in Singapore which merited the calling of the Assembly which had been adjourned sine die by the Government. Now, the motion as it stands must mean that the Government is asking the House as a whole to express its confidence in all the work it has done to date, and all the work its hopes to do so long as it continues to hold the reins of the government. Therefore, Mr Speaker, it became pertinent to find out what exactly this motion meant. The work of the last, two years. Now I look at the Minister for National Development, who is well, and truly asleep at the moment, to find out exactly what his Ministry has done. So far as housing is concerned, very little. So far as promises are concerned, a great deal. I then turn to his neighbour, the Minister for Education. I will not say that his Ministry is a complete flop in the way the Ministry of National Development has been a complete flop, but at least the Ministry of Education has created a situation in Singapore whereby parents are, dissatisfied, pupils are dissatisfied, teachers are dissatisfied. So, Mr, Speaker, one cannot say that the Minister for Education has made a great success of his Ministry. Now, we come to the redoubtable Minister for Labour and Law who has just come back after a conference on labour problems in Geneva and London. I hope the atmosphere there was more congenial to him than it would have been had he been here. So far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, if I may deal with that side of the Honourable the Minister's Ministry, it has somehow not been a howling success. Neither do the people of Singapore think he has made a howling success of that Ministry. The way in which labour problems have been handled, from my point of view, is completely unsatisfactory. A Minister for Labour, seeking to bring about a settlement of a trade dispute, to my mind, Mr Speaker, must try and hold the balance equally between the employee and the employer. That is my understanding of how the Minister should behave. I know it is very difficult sometimes, but he must do his best to give that impression. Unless he is able to give that impression to both sides, that he is trying to be fair to both sides, inevitably he fails in his duty as Minister for Labour. Being Minister for Labour does not mean, to my mind, that he must advocate labour blindly and disregard whatever rights or equities the employer might have in such a situation. The result now is that in so far as the employer is concerned, he trembles when he goes to the Hon. the Minister's Office - not a very happy situation for Singapore. It could well be that that situation enables labour to get everything it wants - a good thing perhaps. But as the Government, it is the duty of the Minister for Labour to hold the balance equally between these two contesting claimants. I know he says his is a labour Government. His is a workers Government, but he must also understand that in the system of society in which he is working, capital and labour must play a part, and unless both of them work amicably, the economy of this country must suffer. And to that extent, the Minister for Labour has failed. So the Labour Ministry cannot get the vote of confidence which this motion seeks to obtain. What about his Ministry of Law? Frankly he has been so engaged on the labour front that he has not had much time to devote to the law front. If he had devoted as much time to the law front as he had devoted to the labour front, I do not know what the situation with regard to the law front would have been. However, that is as it is, Mr Speaker. Then we come to the Hon. the Prime Minister. The Hon. the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, is the most dexterous politician that has walked the political halls of Singapore. How long he will continue to straddle both worlds which he hopes to keep under his control only time will tell. May I tell this to the Hon. the Prime Minister? We on the Opposition are really not interested in these domestic squabbles or on questions whether tie is fit to lead them or whether he has their confidence. But we, Mr Speaker, Sir, are interested in the Prime Minister of Singapore. The Prime Minister of Singapore does not belong to the P.A.P. He belongs to the country, and unless the Prime Minister understands that, we shall always have trouble in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's failing has been that he has been a party mars first, jockeying for power in the Party first and letting the country go to the dogs. That is what history will write of him when history is written. Now, the Deputy Prime Minister - the most peaceable man in the P.A.P. arena, the man who can keep peace betwixt the two warring parties. Therefore, I do not want to say very much about him. He deals with Ministries which are not political. He deals with the weather. The trouble is that we cannot get enough rain at the moment. Our reservoirs are dried up, but that is not his fault. That is the fault of the heavens and the gods. They are not in the P.A.P. That is not a matter which we can lay at the doors of the Deputy Prime Minister. Now the Minister for Health. Doctors have resigned. There is a shortage of doctors, and there are very few specialists in the hospitals. Discontent in the medical service. Recruitment of Japanese doctors from abroad - further dissatisfaction in the service. Allegations that the Japanese doctors do not know what they are doing or what they are prescribing. A loss of confidence in the hospitals, and, therefore, inevitably, people go to private practitioners - not a very good state of affairs in a society where we have a socialist government which is governing us and which should, therefore, provide adequate and suitable hospital facilities for the people of Singapore. The hospital facilities today are at the worst possible level they have been in Singapore for a long, long time. So what confidence can we have in the Minister for Health? Although I like him very much personally - he is a gentleman and it is very difficult to find a gentleman in the P.A.P. - unfortunately he is one of them, and anything that is connected with the P.A.P. seems not to be able to get on in its human relationships with the people. Now might I tell the Hon. the Prime Minister this? However brilliant his Cabinet might be, the decisions of this brilliant Cabinet must be implemented by human beings who are paid by the Government, who work under the Government and below those servants. If the Government cannot command the respect and the loyalty of those people, however brilliant your policies may be, Mr Prime Minister, they must inevitably fail. They have failed because-

Order. I have not as yet aspired to the position of Prime Minister. The Member for Farrer Park must remember he is addressing the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. Might I remind the Prime Minister then through you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if he wishes to govern this place well, there must be humanity in his Government and not this inhumanity and driving people as if they were slaves or morons or machines? Now, the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance, able economist though he may be, must translate his theoretical knowledge, his undoubted theoretical ability, bring it to the ground and make it work in the form of rice and work for the people of Singapore. Then, and only then, will the people of Singapore accept him as an able Finance Minister. His colleagues, I know, think a great deal of him, and so do I, Mr Speaker, for his undoubted ability to analyse a situation well and try to present something on the results of his analysis. Certainly he has great ability. But what use has that undoubted ability of his been to Singapore during the last two years of his tenure of office? As the Minister himself has said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the most pressing problem for Singapore is the question of the common market which is to be established between the Federation and ourselves. Naturally that is the only solution, and we have been waiting anxiously for the Hon. the Finance Minister to make some sort of statement on this common market. No statement has been forthcoming. No statement will be forthcoming, it would appear, for a long time. We have been patient enough, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the people deserve a reply to this soon. Are you going to succeed, may I ask the Hon. the Finance Minister through you, Mr Speaker, Sir? What has happened to this common market? It has been mentioned in this House a long time ago. If we are to have a common market, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not going to wait for it for another two or three years. We want it now. The people want it now. Then the Hon. the Finance Minister puts out his Four-year Development Programme. He tells the people of Singapore that this is the solution to their economic ills. What are the solutions in the Four-year Plan? What are his industrial development plans? His steel mill in Jurong?

Coming up.

Coming up! His steel mill in Jurong, Mr Speaker, Sir?

You want to take a bet on it?

He is bogged down at Kallang. It will take him four years to fill it up, and he will be out of office by then. And nothing has happened in Jurong yet. Steel mill? Now let us really analyse the position of the steel mill. He has not got enough water to work that steel mill, Mr Speaker, Sir. He has not got enough water to give the people of Singapore to drink, let alone run a steel mill. Do not forget it. He needs 10 million gallons of water a day to run this steel mill. That is what he has not told the people of Singapore; and the reservoirs at MacRitchie, Pierce and Seletar are dried up for the first time in 50 years, and the Prime Minister has the effrontery to tell the country that Singapore has not had it so good as it has under his Government.

You have just said that the gods are responsible.

Yes. Now that the Prime Minister has brought me back to it, I remember the Minister for Culture in one of his speeches during the 1959 elections said, "We do not leave anything to chance. We do not leave anything to the gods. We plan them ourselves and we see that we deliver the goods on our plans." And the Prime Minister was bleating the other day when he was faced with a water shortage, "What can I do? I have not had rain. The sky is against me. The gods are against me." Now is this the sort of cry a socialist Prime Minister lets out, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask you, when he faces the country with a water shortage? More of that later, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will come back to that later. So much for the Minister for Finance. Now, the Hon. the Minister for Home Affairs, who is happily married. He is one of the quieter Ministers of the P.A.P. Government, a very difficult gentleman to fathom, as all Ministers for the Interior should be. I believe he knows more about the Communist movement underground than any other Minister should, because it is under his portfolio, as the police are, and therefore he should know exactly what goes on on a lower level. Yet we get to the situation, Mr Speaker, where Singapore is in danger, where the non-Communist Left, with the Hon. the Prime Minister as the leader, and the Communist Left, of which Mr Lim Ching Siong is the leader, are about to clash, and thereby threatening the whole of the democratic fabric with ruin, and yet the Minister for the Interior, the Minister for Home Affairs, thinks that everything is all right. He is quite happy. Nothing has been done about the situation. He is even now quite content not to do anything about this Communist Left which he says is threatening the very existence of the Government, a situation which I find very difficult to understand. If it is true, then what confidence can we have in his Ministry? Now for the Minister for Culture. An hon. Member: Nothing very much.

Nothing very much! I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I enjoy listening to the Minister for Culture's speeches. They are very illuminating. They are the speeches of a well-read, cultured gentleman. Although my leader does not think the Minister is cultured, I have different views about him. An hon. Member: You have not been to the same places!

We have not been to the same places, no. But we might have. So far as the Ministry of Culture is concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, its effort to create a Malayan culture has been quite pathetic. No one, however sympathetic he may be to the Minister for Culture, will say that his Ministry has been a howling success. So, therefore, on that basis this motion meant nothing. I really and sincerely thought, Mr Speaker, that to summon this Assembly, which had been adjourned sine die, at a moment's notice meant that the country was in danger. That was the only basis on which this House could be summoned. The country was in danger. Public interest demanded that the Assembly do meet in order that the Assembly do give guidance to the Hon. the Prime Minister to meet the country's perils, to solve the country's difficulties. So we came here expectantly, hoping to help the Prime Minister to solve his problems, because his problems are our problems, if they are national problems. But what do we hear from him? Nothing urgently national. All this trouble with his Party; all the troubles about the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. They are all members of the P.A.P. though-this non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. So it seems a purely party problem. Somebody has stabbed the Prime Minister in the back in the Anson by-election, and he has lost the Anson by-election. Therefore, it is a national calamity. Therefore, we are brought into the House. So far as the Opposition are concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. can disappear tomorrow and we will not consider it a national calamity. The P.A.P. are entitled to think that it might be a great loss to the nation. That is their view. But to convene the House and say, "Somebody has stabbed us in the back. Six of our members are being difficult. One of our Parliamentary Secretaries is not being the gentleman we thought he was, in spite of his medical training," that is none of our business. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, when three Political Secretaries are alleged to have stabbed the Government in the back and are alleged to have attacked the Government in public, and when a Parliamentary Secretary, particularly the one attached to the Minister for Home Affairs, has disagreed with the Government openly and publicly, then it becomes our business. Mr Speaker, Sir, these four issues have become our concern, and I ask our Prime Minister what he has done about them. He is playing a sort of game with these three Political Secretaries. Each one saying, "You resign." "No, I will not resign. You tell me to resign." It is as if a game is going on, Sir, each one waiting for the other to make a move. What is this, Sir? Are we playing a game in our backyard? Does the Prime Minister not realise that these are national matters? He is not playing parlour games at the moment. These men are being paid out of public funds. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this document which the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister has laid on the Table is a very interesting document. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you have the document, would you be good enough to take it and look at the date of it? The date is the 12th of August, 1959, two months after the P.A.P. came into power, and well before the Budget debate. This is what the secret document says about Lim Ching Siong. Paragraph 5 on page 2, Mr Speaker, reads as follows: `Of the eight men released, the most important from the security point of view is Mr Lim Chin Siong for he was the person built up as the open front leader by the M.C.P. in 1955-1956.' That was the report of the P.A.P. Government to the Internal Security Council on the 12th of August, 1959. The question of the Political Secretaries, Mr Speaker, Sir, was debated here at length during the Budget Session in December 1959. When questions were raised about the Political Secretaries, the need to appoint them and the type of persons that were to be appointed, the Prime Minister, with his tongue in his cheek - now that we know about this document - told the House, "Oh, they are good chaps. They will put across our policies to the people." What sort of a game was the Prime Minister playing with the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask you?

He was taking you for a ride!

He did not take us for a ride, Mr Speaker, Sir. He took the people of Singapore for a ride. And the people of Singapore will not forgive him for that. We might forgive him, but the people of Singapore will not. There are indications that they are not forgiving him. And if he goes on at this rate, there are sure signs they will not forgive him. We expect the Prime Minister to play the game by the country. When the Prime Minister puts out this document to the Internal Security Council and then comes and tells the House what a trustworthy man Mr Lim Ching Siong is, and then puts him in the Ministry of Finance, with the Minister for Finance, what may I ask did the Prime Minister intend? Did he intend Mr Lim Ching Siong to play chess with the Minister for Finance? What games did Mr Lim Ching Siong in fact play with the Minister for Finance?

They do not talk.

They do not talk? I understand the Minister for Finance has played chess with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and so understands his game well. I suggest again through you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Minister for Finance this time that he might have a game or two of chess with Mr Lim Ching Siong. If he had played a game or two of chess with him, he might have found out what sort of a man Mr Lim Ching Siong is. Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister made his announcement that there was a water shortage and asked the people to save water and not to waste it, the leader of the Alliance wrote a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, suggesting to him that the shortage of water supply was of such a nature and of such importance to the public interest that it merited the recall of the Assembly. But, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister refused the request. He said it was not important at all. And yet the Prime Minister has brought us here, Mr Speaker, Sir, not because of any national calamity that is about to befall us or to beset us, but because he wants us to solve his little party personal problems. I entirely agree with the Member for Thomson that the question of the trial of P.A.P. members and the leadership of the P.A.P is not a matter for us. If they want an impartial Chairman, Mr Speaker, Sir, I venture to suggest they should go to somebody else, and not to you. Since they cannot trust the chairmanship to Dr Toh, I think they will have to go to somebody else. But to bring the whole House here in order to force a vote of confidence on the Government, because there are defections in his own party group, is, I regret to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, using the parliamentary machine to solve the Prime Minister's personal difficulties. It is a complete abuse of the process of parliamentary government. Now, what exactly did the Prime Minister tell us? He spoke to us for about 55 precious minutes, and he said precious little. All he said were two things: "We do not intend to take repressive measures against the Communists. Our duty is to preserve the P.A.P." That was his song; that was his line; and that was what he repeated over and over again in his inimitable English. Over and over again, "We are not going to fight the Communists. We are going to let the British fight them, it is not our business to fight the Communists. They are about to cut our throats, but we do not care about that. We will let the British come and stop them from cutting our throats." That was how I understood the Prime Minister. He says his first job is to preserve his Party. Let the country go to the dogs, it does not matter. He has already let it go to the dogs once before, you may remember, Mr Speaker, when the ex-Minister for National Development was misbehaving himself. He misbehaved himself for well over a year before the Prime Minister sacked him. He nearly brought the country to a standstill before the Prime Minister acted. The Prime Minister waited for a suitable opportunity to sack him. The suitable opportunity was not in relevance to the State, Mr Speaker, Sir, It was in relevance to his own position in the Party. When the proper time came, he sacked him. And now he thinks it is the proper time again to use the parliamentary machine to solve his own personal difficulties. Sir, I do not want to say very much more. I think I have said enough. Time is getting on and it is already 3 o'clock in the morning. By the time the Prime Minister finishes, it might well be 4 o'clock. But I want to say this, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are not interested in the personal squabbles of the People's Action Party. But to the extent that their personal squabbles are matters of public interest in so far as the Ministers are concerned, and if as a result of the personal squabbles in the Party the Ministers lose the faith and confidence of their Back-benchers, then it becomes a matter of interest to the Assembly as a whole and to the country at large. In parliamentary practice if the Ministers have not got the faith, the following and the confidence of the Party, then there is only one course open to them, and who knows it better than the Prime Minister himself, who is so well skilled in constitutional practice? But this I will ask of the Prime Minister, that so long as he is the Prime Minister he should act the Prime Minister as he belongs to the State of Singapore first. He must not put his party interests before those of his country. I am entitled to demand this of him because I speak for the country on this matter. I do not speak as a Party man. I speak as one interested in parliamentary democracy; and in the parliamentary democratic system the Prime Minister belongs to the country first and to his Party afterwards. Let him act the Prime Minister and we will support him.

The Prime Minister, in reply. 2.57 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised to hear from the Members of this House that the motion has been brought into this Chamber because of a domestic quarrel in the P.A.P. We have spent, in a record session, 13 solid hours on this motion, which quite clearly has agitated everybody. I say, let us not confuse the people of Singapore. A collision of ideological forces has taken place. Nobody knows what the end result is going to be. But what we do know is that we are in for a rough time. Whether this Government continues in office because of certain inroads made by the Communist Left into the will to resist of certain members of the P.A.P. back-benchers becomes a matter of survival of the Government. That is why the House is in session. Very simply, as I have written to my colleague, the Leader of the House, before the battle is joined, as I think it inevitably must now, you have to be sure that the people will follow you into battle. I have the assurance of my colleagues that they are prepared to do this. I have come to this Assembly in order that the P.A.P. Assemblymen can publicly declare where they stand. I am not interested, Mr Speaker, Sir, as has been suggested by some P.A.P. Assemblymen, in continuing in office on the strength of the Opposition. They know, and I know, that that is the surest way to political demise. I was disappointed to listen to the evasive rejoinders that have been made to the speech I made in moving my motion - disappointed because all the speakers were reading set speeches which were rendered out of date by the new situation which has arisen as a result of our disclosing the facts to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park is not very sensitive in guessing the under-currents of the political forces now in tussle. If he were aware, as I think it is my duty to make him and the people of Singapore aware, that if we are not careful we shall run into a first-class crisis, then I think he would not have treated this debate in the frivolous manner that he did. I have a feeling that in these matters perhaps some Members do not wish to face up to the situation. The Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministries of Health and Home Affairs and some P.A.P. Assemblymen have taken the line that there is no necessity for the vote of confidence, and have requested me to withdraw the motion. Of course, they do not wish to have to say openly, yes, they are going into battle. Well, that is a matter for them to decide. I say the moment for decision has now come. They did not wish to resign when after Hong Lim it was suggested that we should return the mandate to the electorate. I now discover that what they want is to capture the power which we, the present leadership, won for the Party in 1959. It is our duty to see that no one perverts this power for any other purposes than those for what the people voted it. If they want to assume power and are prepared to face the hazards that have been outlined by my colleague the Minister for Finance, then let them call for general elections so that they can seek authority from the people, and not usurp the power from us. If they wish to take this course, let them vote against the motion. There is no question of this motion being withdrawn. We are going into recess till the end of October and we have to know where the country stands. When carried, today's vote will give the Government the constitutional right to carry on. But we ourselves have clearly stated that it is the moral authority and the support of the people that is so vital for good and orderly government. It is therefore our business at an appropriate time, after taking such steps as are necessary in the long term interest of the people, to return the power back to the people in order that they can decide on who should guide them and whither they should go. Most important in the next few months is our business to present the conditions for merger to the people. I do not believe I can assist Members on the other side of the House by explaining why, in my submission, we are unlikely to establish these conditions for merger if we act as the former Government did. May I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir, from a political statement we made at the beginning of this year in which I hope, if Members opposite have the time, they might find some elucidation? On page 6 of the 1960 Anniversary Souvenir number, we said: `Merger between the Federation and Singapore is historically inevitable. The man made boundary at the Straits of Johore will disappear as must all the other freak colonial frontiers bequeathed to newly independent colonial territories by the map drawers and surveyors of the colonial era. The reason is simply that the Federation cannot afford to have a hostile Singapore. So far we have emphasised the importance of the Federation to Singapore. Lest there is any danger of forgetting it, let us remind people that Singapore is important to the Federation militarily and politically. Militarily and politically Singapore and the Federation are one unit. Colonialism has made a technically international frontier on the Straits of Johore and created two states. But no soldier can devise a front to make Singapore and the Federation two instead of one military situation. He who conquers Malaya conquers Singapore. The Japanese proved it. And conversely he who holds Singapore absorbs Malaya. Stamford Raffles proved it. Perhaps it is worthwhile remembering that it is the same British Army, on both sides of the causeway, though on the Federation side it is there by invitation on friendly defence treaty with the Federation Army. And no politician has yet devised a method to prevent news and events from spreading across the causeway. Every political action in the Federation, in language, education, taxation, and all other fields of government, affects and has repercussion in Singapore. And the converse is equally true however much people may try to minimise the reactions. ... this delicate balance cannot last forever. The present balance of power and forces is an interim one. For finally the Federation and Singapore positions will have to be contained by one authority, or the Federation will run the risk of having Singapore fall into hostile hands and later have to face more dangerous military and political consequences.' Let me explain simply that if we are to win this battle in men's minds, it is not a simple question as the Member for Thomson has suggested, of provoking a riot and then doing a purge, because the end result of having provoked a riot and executed a purge is to have failed in the argument in the minds of the people. I do not know who is the more courageous - the man who knows the course of events that are likely to develop, who knows that the malady is likely to get worse before it gets better, who calmly faces that prospect and is prepared for the rigours that he will go through; and the other who in alarm takes a short-cut, and thus a purgative. Whoever is the more courageous - I have no doubt whatsoever, which of the two is the wiser course: getting home to the people, not this froth that Communism is evil, that they are all evil men talking villainy, but the real truth that Communism is a tremendous challenge that has to be met, that it is a battle for men's minds and loyalties. I have seen in this very Chamber men's minds and loyalties switch under the heat and pressure of persuasion, and perhaps silent intimidation by the Communist that the future belongs to him, that the east wind is going stronger than the west wind, and that when he prevails one day, he will deal with all those who have opposed him. Listening to my friend, the Member for Thomson, I find it difficult to believe that two years ago, before we took office, I spent a whole week with him up in the mountains and presented him with the perils that we would encounter when we took office. He was a non-Communist. He fought with me in the S.T.C. Union to prevent that union from failing under Communist domination. He knew what the perils were. He knows what is Communism. He is no opportunist. And he made up his mind that he was coming with us. One year ago, after constant heat and pressure from the Communists, he came to see me in hospital where I was convalescing from a minor operation, and, in the presence of two others, said that he thought it was a great mistake our having assumed power under these circumstances and that we should vacate. He was fighting the Communists and having a tough time. Then one day, two months later, after he came back from England, he decided that he was on the wrong side and that he was going over to the side that was going to win. He told me quite frankly that he thinks the Communists are bound to win, that he is not prepared to be an anti-Communist or to have a fight with them. Therefore, he insisted that we must do this, that and the other. Then our ideological troubles began. This is a serious problem that we face because we are tapping from the same oilfield as the Communists. The choice for democratic socialism is either to battle for your political activists who have convictions, guts, energy, enthusiasm and drive, and who are motivated not altogether by personal considerations; or to rely on men motivated for purely selfish motives, for position, power and profit. Therefore we tap from the same oilfield. There is no person now on the P.A.P. side who can say he did not know what he was in for. Everyone, before he came in, signed a solemn document that he stood by the principles of the Party and, in particular, stood by the Fourth Anniversary Souvenir number wherein we made a clear demarcation line between where we stood and where the Communists stood. I never believed that I would hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs mouth words and phrases which he barely understands, and give an analysis which I think deep down in his heart he knows is spurious. But he has been convinced that that is the easy way out, and so the rot sets in. The will to resist disappears and they say, "In the name of democracy, socialism, intra-party democracy, let us go and float with them." That is the crisis - a crisis which even the democratic States in Western Europe are facing, a crisis which certainly we are facing. The alternatives are, either to have a Labour Front type government with Lib-Socs, consisting of people who are relatively effete, who can be bought and sold across the counter, and who will buy and sell others, or to tap the same half per cent of the population which is politically alert. We have tapped them, everyone of them. Today the eight who have dissented from us are men who have moved into this world, the no-man's-land between the Communists and us, the unions and the mass organisations, where words like "socialism" mean Communism or democratic socialism, where things are hazy, where you do not want them to be clear, but where they are clear enough when you speak to each other in the hidden language which those who are initiated understand. That is the crisis we are faced with. The battle for the control of the P.A.P. as a Party is not a problem. That will be resolved. We are veterans of many a battle since the Party was first formed in 1954, and I have informed some of my friends behind me that we are unmoved at the prospect of another battle. It is not the P.A.P. that is in danger, because we have built in all the safeguards. We know, in tapping the oilfield, that explosions may occur from time to time and we have taken the necessary precautions. Sir, men who joined the Party like the Parliamentary Secretaries in the Ministries of Health and Home Affairs only recently in 1959, when our star was in the ascendent, are rattled and shaken to the point of contemplating changing stands by the temporary setbacks in Hong Lim and Anson. They do not understand that the political leadership, if it is to survive, must be resolute and must be prepared to face up to unpleasantness. We have sufficient confidence in the ultimate triumph of our analysis and the fact that because the analysis is correct we are more likely to have the appropriate political strategy. Let everybody take his stand in the knowledge that it is not possible to insure with both sides: the P.A.P., if democratic socialism continues, or the Communists, if Communism triumphs. We in the leadership, whatever our multifarious shortcomings which our erstwhile admirers and followers have been labouring this evening, have nailed our colours to the mast several years ago before we took power in the last elections. Those who are contemplating an assault on the P.A.P. citadel should carefully consider the injuries they would be inflicting on themselves and on us, and also their chances of ultimate success. By the time this House reconvenes, Mr Speaker, we hope everybody will have appraised themselves of the facts of life in Malaya as they really are, and will have prepared themselves psychologically for the decisions they will have to make on their future; for on the people's decision depends whether this little experiment in representative government in Singapore survives or withers away. The Member for Anson has insinuated that this is a government of job-seekers, that we want to carry on in office after the electorate has rejected us on two occasions. And he went further and accused me of wishing to remain Prime Minister come what may. I wish it were true, that I get as much enjoyment out of being Prime Minister as he did out of being Chief Minister, it is not the sensation of power that fills me with elation. To abscond now when trouble brews would be an act of cowardice, and my colleagues have asked me to carry on and have assured me that they are prepared to come together in the battle. I myself was of the opinion after Hong Lim that the best thing for the country was a fresh election and another government, probably still a P.A.P. one with a fresh mandate. Because we have insuperable problems to resolve and they can only be resolved if the government has moral authority to govern. But now, faced with this challenge of capture and perversion of the government under the P.A.P. banner, a silent transfer of the driver and a change in direction, I say it is our business to stay put and see the thing through as quickly as we can with the Federation of Malaya. On the question of Political Secretaries, Sir, I think the Member for Farrer Park made one valuable point - that we knew in August 1959 and we knew well before August 1959 the respective position of everyone. This is no smear, no name-calling. It is a waste of time calling names, unless you can nail a man down. And from now on those who take us on must be prepared to nail us down and be nailed down by us. We have said that. Let me read this document which the Leader of the House has tabled: `Of the eight men released, the most important from the security point of view is Mr Lim Chin Siong for he was the person built up as the open front leader by the M.C.P. in 1955-1956. Once he is released, it makes very little difference from the point of view of subversion whether the remaining forty-odd detainees are released or not because they cannot materially affect the security position. Whether they be inside detention camps or outside in active participation the overall position is not basically different. Of the eight, the P.A.P. Government has reasons to believe that five, not including Lim Chin Siong, genuinely and sincerely subscribe to the P.A.P. democratic socialist ideology.' Sir, I do not think anybody who has not gone through the experience of working at ground level with these men can understand the metamorphosis that can take place in men's minds and men's intentions. You can guess what a man is, but you are never really sure. You can know what a man does because it is an overt act, but his ultimate conviction - whether he is a Communist, or a socialist, or a social democrat - is something which you have to piece together over a long period of time. Constant and consistent conduct leads you to the conclusion that a person is or is not a Communist. And even if he is at a certain time, as I have said of my friend Mr Bani in 1959, quite clearly he knew where he stood and he knew what Communism was about because he has been fighting this and has met all these problems before, but he can change his opinion, and has a right to change his opinion. Therefore, when they came out and made a declaration on their release on the 4th of June, that they stood firmly and squarely behind the P.A.P. and stated their position in print - we felt that it was worth a try. It was a battle for men's minds. I would say, at the time when Mr Fong Swee Suan came out from prison on the 4th of June, he was not a Communist, he was a democratic socialist with us. And I would say that at the time he was appointed Political Secretary to the Minister for Labour, he was genuinely and sincerely trying to work the system. But in the process of that battle, he melted and was reformed in their ranks, in the emotional hothouse of the Chinese Malayan revolution. It is something which only those who have been through the experience can know. If you have squatted in the union, seen the activists work absolutely selflessly, day and night, for a cause, utterly ruthless and fanatical, then you understand how a man suddenly melt away. That is what is happening in Singapore. That is the world which Members on the other side of the House do not understand, except perhaps the three former members of the P.A.P. I think the Member for Hong Lim understands this very well. As my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has said, having complained of the undemocratic nature of the P.A.P. Constitution and of the cadre membership, the Member for Hong Lim has, from his own experience in the P.A.P., drafted and submitted for registration a constitution which is tighter and harder to capture than the P.A.P.'s. We hold a cadre conference bi-annually. He wants to hold one triennially and so on. He has gone through the mill. He knows what it is all about. Let us not kid ourselves about intra-party democracy. Every man who complains of it signed his application form for membership that "I accept the rules of the constitution." He knew what was in the constitution. We know how the game is played. We allowed free play on the ground in order to tap the neutrals, to bring the activists into action in our branches. But we also run the risk - and we know that - of getting chaps planted in. Therefore, the first entree is not the ground organisation in the open. It can be compared if you like to the Pope and his pontiffs. The cardinals appoint the Pope; the Pope appoints the cardinals. It is a system that has existed some 2,000 years and there must be some merit in it. The Communists have that system too. And I say, if you try to run the democratic system of the mass political party, unless it is a party not worth capturing, like the Labour Front or S.P.A., you will have no end of trouble. We are worth the capture; that is the point. We have spent two years in office, and the Party is still ticking. We went down in Hong Lim and I think the Member for Hong Lim knows - win or lose - we gave him a fight for seven weeks. The organisation is there, it is worth the capture. And I say to them who are thinking of it - think again. I think it is important now for me to answer why we took them in. We took a chance. We lost out in several cases. It is a risk that was calculated, and so it has to be. It may be that many interested people will say that what we, have disclosed is a fairy tale. I do not think the Member for Anson is an interested person. But I think there are many interested persons who would like to repeat that, and if they could get him to repeat it and help more people to repeat it, to make them believe it, it will help to cloud the issue. Those of us who have lived through the events of the mass agitation of the last few years, especially since 1955, know that this is not a bogey but an ogre which can send the creeps into a man's soul. They can put the fear of God into intelligent people and convince them that the future belongs to them. Hence the weak and wobbly line taken by some of the speakers this evening. It is with sadness that I watch these men who have been my friends and comrades, some for many years. But most of them are the newer members. Their resolution melted as the heat of the battle intensified. They are not crooks and rogues like those who sat on the last Government benches, but they lacked sternness of purpose in the face of an adversary who mounts a massive effort at persuasion and the silent intimidation of who is the winner in the long run. But I am proud to say that many have stood up to the test of the occasion as the effort against us is mounted, and some feel so strongly that they have come out from hospital to cast a vote tonight. It is not for fun, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these things are done. It is not to settle a party conflict. That can be settled because we have built in the safeguards in the constitution of the Party. They can rock us, damage us; but so can we them. But if a silent conversion is made in this Chamber, then I say the country will rock. Sir, I have here a series of extracts from the document signed by the three political Secretaries together with Mr Devan Nair, and Mr Chan Chiaw Thor when they were released. And I say - I have said it before - that it was on the basis of this written undertaking of where they stood that they came into the Government with us. And if they move their stand from this, then we must part company. It is not a manifestation of courage just to sack Political Secretaries and make martyrs out of them. They have been my friends and colleagues over many years in a common struggle. They have chosen to betray us. But even in moments of anger I think we should act soberly and calmly and not make unnecessary martyrs out of people. Let me read what they said: Page 1, paragraph 2 of the statement: `With regard to immediate tasks, particularly in the new phase since the achievement of political independence by the Federation of Malaya, we endorse the stand taken by the P.A.P. in the document "The New Phase After Merdeka - Our Tasks and Policy" published in the 1958 annual souvenir issue of the Party.' Page 2, second paragraph: `The real struggle for socialism in Malaya can only begin when our people, Malays, Chinese, Indians are able to transcend the communal cultural and linguistic barriers and loyalties which at present divide them, and embrace a common Malayan loyalty and cultivate a common national consciousness.' Page 3, paragraph 4: `It would be a mistake to regard the non-inclusion of Singapore in the independent Federation of Malaya as being due solely to British chicanery. The British, of course, cannot escape their share of responsibility for this cruel amputation. The fact remains, however, that the exclusion of Singapore is also the reflection of the genuine fear of the Malay majority in the Federation that the Chinese majority in Singapore are incapable of a Malaya-centred loyalty and cannot be assimilated into a Malaya-centred nationalism. It is up to us in Singapore to prove that the fears and suspicions of our Malay brethren across the causeway are groundless. In the words of the P.A.P.'s policy statement, "The New Phase After Merdeka".' And here they quoted this and adopted it as their own: `"It must be demonstrated to three million Malays in the Federation that the one million Chinese in Singapore are ready, willing and able to be absorbed as one Malayan people, all able to speak Malay, and willing to work together for the economic betterment and upliftment of the Malays as equals of the other races."' And this is what is interesting. Page 5, paragraph 3: `It was not the might of British arms which defeated the armed revolt led by the M.C.P., but the failure of the M.C.P. to establish itself as a nationally based movement. And thereby hangs a lesson which Malayan socialists will ignore at their peril.' And I say, on this issue of merger, if they could ignore it, they would fight it at their peril. In the last paragraph, page 6, they said: `With the achievement of political independence by the Federation of Malaya, a new phase has begun.' I am afraid, Sir, they have not quite adjusted themselves to this new phase. The Member for Anson has said that Mr Lim Ching Siong does not oppose merger. The Member for Thomson has asked me to quote any single reference, any single line which is hostile to merger. I say the open conflict would never have taken place and they would never have been so stupid as to betray us, and dealt us a treacherous blow in Anson, but for the fact that they were bitterly opposed to merger or super merger. It is on this basic and fundamental division that we have now parted ways. Let me quote you a series of extracts, Mr Speaker, Sir, to show where they really stand on merger, although from time to time, because it is such a difficult issue on which to back-pedal, wobbling has taken place. On the 13th of June, Mr Lim together with the Member for Thomson and four others issued a statement which can only be taken as a challenge to the statement made by the Chairman of the P.A.P. on the 9th of June. They stated that it must be understood that any constitutional arrangement that frustrates the people's struggle for freedom and democracy will be resisted by the people. Here they are saying that merger, independence, something which is almost a dogma with the P.A.P. and all socialists, is a sell-out. "understood that any constitutional arrangement that frustrates" freedom and democracy; going in as a State of the Federation to freedom; frustrating democracy. What are we talking about? Then on the 24th of June, Mr Lim in a letter to the Straits Times said: `Merger, we have hitherto come to understand, was a thing of the distant future. However, recent statements by leaders of the Federation hold out an earlier promise of the union of these two territories. Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected? The right-wing government in the Federation and a left-wing government in Singapore apply certain conflicting principles.' All kinds of difficulties are now contemplated and envisaged because obviously somebody does not like it. He went on to say: `Merger is a matter that must be worked out to a great degree of clarity. It is not a thing to be accepted without firmly defined purposes. Great sacrifices have been made by the people to achieve their present position in Singapore and merger must never turn out to a sell-out of any sort.' How can merger be a sell-out when it is a proclaimed objective of the political party that won the last elections with this as a major plank in its platform? But then they have their various reasons for it, their different fears to which my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has referred. And so we could go on, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I think this is only the beginning of the argument. As I have said, something which perhaps the Member for Farrer Park may consider worth contemplating, if you lock a man up and you have not divulged what he represents, you have left a whole following believing in that idea. And new leaders will spring up and lead the followers with those predilections. I say this is an argument which we can win, because I think if they oppose merger they will be making a mistake second only to the starting of the Emergency in 1948. I am not saying that if Singapore goes in with the Federation we should have insured Singapore against Communism. That is not the case. All you have done is to stabilise the position, give it a viable base from which to build a relatively healthy society. We are left with a dismembered portion of a once sizeable Empire which included the Borneo territories. We governed from Singapore - the British did - Labuan, North Borneo, the Cocos Islands (now gone, to Australia), Penang and all the rest of it in this region. And we are left with all the monuments of a former colonial capital without the wherewithal. I say the first objective is to ensure that you win this battle in people's minds. This is the only road to survival. It is so. If we cannot convince them that it is so, then I say the battle is lost. And then, of course, brute force will be used. And why should we use brute force? Because I say it is unnecessary. The brute force, anyway, is there, because this is a S.E.A.T.O. base. If people are foolish enough to believe that they have got the freedom of the island to upset the base, or that they can have the freedom of the island provided they give a verbal guarantee about the base not being upset, then I wish them well. For my part, as I have stated at the opening, under conditions of absolute safety for the life and limb of every political contestant, the raps are on. If we cannot win the argument, then we will never win, and I say that this is the argument that we have to win. I am not unduly optimistic but reasonably confident that logic and the inevitable course of events over the next few months will bring the two territories inevitably together in closer association - in what form, I am unable to say as yet. The time will come, I hope, when even sceptics like the Member for Anson will be surprised to see the logic of history, geography, the military situation, and the political situation. In moving this motion of confidence, I would like to say that we are prepared to do not what is best for the P.A.P., as has been suggested by the Member for Farrer Park, but what is best for the country. What is best for the P.A.P. is what I suggested after Hong Lim - to return the mandate. There are certain inescapable problems. The people want a rapid rise in the standard of living. There is no base for your economic expansion. Your entrepot trade is restricted. Your industrialisation has come to depend upon factors beyond your control, and so on. Whoever remains in office bears the odium of failure. After Hong Lim, when it was clear that the electorate wanted something quick and it was not possible to deliver, I said to my colleagues, "Return that mandate." The people will learn as the years go on, when the P.A.P. comes back in its pristine glory. We are staying on not for the P.A.P., but because we will not allow this Government to be sold down the drain and the people ruined. Question put.

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 8; Abstentions, 16; Absent, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Buang bin Omar Ahmad Jabri bin Junid. Mohammad Akib. Byrne, K. M. Lim Yew Hock. Chan Chee Seng. Marshall, David. Chan Choy Siong, Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Madam. Rajah, A. P. Chor Yeok Eng. Seow Peck Leng, Goh Chew Chua. Mrs. Goh Keng Swee. Thio Chan Bee. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy, G. Abstentions. Koh, C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Bani, S. T. Lee Kuan Yew. Chan Sun Wing. Lee Teck Him. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Lim Cheng Lock. Lee Siew Choh. Mammen, John. Leong Keng Seng. Mohd. Ariff bin Lin You Eng. Suradi. Lingam, S. V. M. Ismail Rahim. Low Por Tuck. Ong Pang Boon. Ng Teng Kian. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Chang Sam. Ramaswamy, S. Ong Eng Guan. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Sheng Nam Chin. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Nil. Motion accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That this House expresses its confidence in the Government. The business having concluded, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly sine die at five minutes to four o'clock a.m.