Hansard, 1962-07-12

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that on the 11th day of July, 1962, he assented to the Singapore National Referendum Bill.

I thought this would be the most convenient time, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is nothing of public import. It concerns the inaccuracy of the statement which I made yesterday when I quoted the Member for Anson from the transcript of Radio Singapore. He is reported from the transcript to have said: 'And I want to put this to you which you have forgotten: that they say to you that they will put the alternative. Do you want the P.A.P. proposals or do you want complete merger. I say to you that I am prepared, since the journalists are present, to donate $1,000 to the National Union of Journalists if in fact the alternatives are put in that way and not in an alleged complete merger in accordance with Penang and Malacca. And let me show you what the P.A.P....'. In a subsequent statement he made - something different, Mr Speaker, Sir - he made an alteration. This is subsequent to what he said. However, for the delectation of those Members who are interested, the tape recorder will be in the Library at 5 o'clock for their entertainment during the tea break.

Any question?

No, Sir.

2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the items of business set down on the Order Paper for this day and on the motion of no confidence in the Government in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Anson shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight on Friday, 13th July. Mr Speaker, the main interest in this sitting of the Assembly has been on the passage of the National Referendum Bill and the questions which are to be posed at the referendum itself. Both these items have been disposed of. They have taken the greater part of two weeks' debate and the remaining items on the Order Paper are of little significance. So I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that since I have given notice that the Government intends to adjourn this Assembly sine die tomorrow night, it is fitting that I should here move this motion that the proceedings on all items should come to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight tomorrow.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the items of business set down on the Order Paper for this day and on the motion of no confidence in the Government in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Anson shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight on Friday, 13th July.

2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report as contained in Paper L.A. 12 of 1962. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Report of the Committee of Privileges arises out of a complaint by the Member for Anson that the Minister for Finance was guilty of abuse and breach of privilege in that he made the following statements :- "(a) 'Sir, we saw during those days how the Member for Anson, when he was Chief Minister, was chased from pillar to post, allowed the administration to collapse, allowed the whole apparatus of State to be regarded with contempt by people who should have been taught a lesson. The result of his feeble, weak, vacillating policies was that ultimately when the Communists mounted the effort against him, he was reduced to a quivering, whimpering, half-demented...' (b) 'It is quite unnecessary for me to conjure up imaginative events when they are recorded in newspaper accounts, when everyone knew that when the major effort was mounted against him, he fell sick.' (c) 'And in Singapore, one degree North of Equator, where the temperature is always above 80 degrees, the Member for Anson had to go around in woollen suits, and eventually...' (d) 'Quite unlike the Member for Anson, Sir, who tries to avoid unpleasant decisions, we stand up to the challenge, Mr Speaker, Sir. We do not scoot like cowards, like the Member for Anson'". The complaint of breach of privilege by the Member for Anson could not be sustained by the Committee as it is accepted that there should be freedom of speech and debate in the Assembly so long as the rules of debate and order contained in the Standing Orders are observed. And indeed this privilege of speech is empowered in the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Ordinance of 1962. In fact, in the evidence given by the Member for Anson himself on the 26th June, he admitted that there could be no breach of privilege. I quote from page C24 of the Report, col. 23, questions 52 to 54: '52. Mr Rajah: Now, may I deal with the breach of privilege first, Mr Marshall? Mr Marshall: No. If I might answer that, Mr Rajah. I am not well aware of, how shall I say it, the law with reference to this but I have since then looked at it and it seems to me that it is an abuse of privilege rather than a breach of --- 53. Mr Rajah: That is what I was trying to get at. If anything is to arise out of this, it is under the head of abuse of privilege and not a breach of privilege? Mr Marshall: I think that is correct. 54. Mr Rajah: You will accept that? Mr Marshall: I think so, yes. Because he has a privilege to speak, so there is no breach of privilege there in standing up to speak.' Mr Speaker, Sir, having dismissed the complaint of breach of privilege, the Committee went on to consider whether the Minister for Finance, had committed an abuse of privilege. The position of Members during a debate in the Assembly has been very succinctly and aptly described by the Member for Farrer Park in the Minutes of Evidence - page C32, col. 40, question 120. This is what the Member for Farrer Park said: '120. Mr Rajah: There is this one aspect that is worrying me. It seems to me, listening to Mr Marshall, that it is a question of strong language bordering on whatever he feels it is. Now, on that aspect, Mr David Marshall, if I enter a boxing ring, I expect to be hit and hit hard with the gloves; and if I enter the political arena, I expect to be hit hard, I must not be over squeamish. Now I am just wondering, Mr David Marshall, whether, we all being politicians, we hit hard sometimes and if someone hits us equally hard, should we object?' The real complaint by the Member for Anson can be seen in his reply. He had this to say. `The answer to that, Sir,...'---

Order. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that his duty now is just to present this Report and not to justify it. He presents this Report. This is the Report of the Committee of Privileges. If it is challenged, then, of course, the Leader of the House comes forward to justify it. He is now reopening the whole matter.

Mr Speaker, I am precisely doing that, presenting the Report to this House. The conclusions have been drawn here, that the Committee has not considered this a breach of privilege and that the Committee has not considered it an abuse of privilege. So I am just seeking to explain to the House why it is not an abuse of privilege and how this Committee arrived at those conclusions.

Order. I think the Leader of the House will find all the reasons given in the Report. All these things were considered by the Committee and it has come to certain conclusions. The Leader of the House just presents those conclusions to the House. If the conclusions are challenged, then, of course, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to justify those conclusions.

Mr Speaker, the motion moved by the Member for Anson referred to a possibility that the Minister for Finance was guilty of abuse of privilege. This Report shows that the Minister for Finance had in fact not committed a breach of privilege. As you wish it, Mr Speaker, I will just read out from the Report the conclusions that the Committee has arrived at. It is at page 3, paragraph 18 onwards: '18. The statements complained of were uttered in the heat of debate in answer to points raised by Mr David Marshall, as can be clearly seen in the official report, an extract whereof is annexed hereto. Your Committee are therefore satisfied that there is no evidence that the statements were made deliberately or maliciously. 19. Your Committee are further satisfied that the statements complained of contain no more than assessments made by Dr Goh Keng Swee of the political and administrative situation at the time Mr David Marshall was Chief Minister. The statements also contain comments which are critical of and express opinions in regard to the political conduct and activities of Mr David Marshall at that time. The denials made by Mr David Marshall do not, in the view of your Committee, take the matter any further. They merely served to and did excite an exchange of political arguments, a great deal of which was irrelevant to the issue before your Committee. As the contending arguments put forward can be honestly maintained on either side, your Committee consider that it cannot be said that the statements complained of are false. 20. Your Committee, therefore, find that the claim by Mr David Marshall that in making the statements complained of, Dr Goh Keng Swee was guilty of an abuse of privilege cannot be sustained. 21. Your Committee note that the language used by Dr Goh Keng Swee was couched in intemperate terms, but, having regard to the heat of the moment, and the undoubted provocation accorded to Dr Goh Keng Swee as a Member of the Government when Mr David Marshall criticised the Government for the use of military forces "in a highly provocative manner", your Committee make no recommendation in the matter. 22. In the light of the above, your Committee recommend that no action be taken on the complaint of Mr David Marshall.'

Question put, and agreed to.

No division?

Order. This is a serious matter which affects the Assembly. It does not affect any individual. Resolved. That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report as contained in Paper L.A. 12 of 1962.

2.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves that the following amendments, as recommended in paragraph 8 of the First Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A. 8 of 1962, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly:- '(a) Standing Order No. 31: Paragraph (2): In line 3, leave out "shall" and insert "may". '(b) Standing Order No. 35: (i) After "35", insert--- "(1) No private Member's motion shall be proceeded with unless, upon the notice of such motion being read, support thereof or in principle shall be signified to the Assembly by at least one Member then present in the Chamber or unless the notice of such motion have been signed by a supporter or supporters under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Manner of giving Notices)." (ii) Re-number paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as (2), (3) and (4), respectively.'. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the position today is that a Member who seeks to raise a matter of national importance on a motion requires to have the signature of at least one other Member of the Assembly supporting the motion before it can be entertained. That is to say, there must be at least two signatures to that motion before it can be tabled. You have, Sir, in a very painstaking memorandum, if I may say so, pointed out that in Australia, the Federation of Malaya, Ceylon, Canada, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Nigeria, a motion does not require two signatures before it is entertained. But after it is moved in the House, it must be seconded in the House before it can be proceeded with after the opening speech of the mover. The procedure in India, however, and in the House of Commons, is that no seconder is required and any Member may table a motion in his own name, no supporter is required in the House itself, and once it is moved, it becomes a matter for debate.

The hon. Member, of course, is a Member of the Standing Orders Committee and was a Member when this Report was agreed to. I do not know what he is aiming at, whether he wishes to send this Report back or just draw attention to salient points, because if he tries to send this Report back, then I must inform him that that is not good parliamentary practice. If he wished that to be done, he should have asked another Member to interest himself in this.

Mr Speaker, your anticipation in this case is unfounded because you must be aware that I did, in fact, support this Report in Committee. I am merely seeking to draw attention and to give thanks to those who saw the point and gave assistance in a matter of some importance to this House. If you will bear with me, I will not be long, Mr Speaker. I was saying that in Singapore the requirement for a supporter to sign the motion paper means, in effect, that an independent Member or single representative of his Party in the Assembly is in the acutely difficult position of having to hawk his motion around to other Opposition Parties, pleading for a supporter, and very often, Sir - I mean, there is no secret about this - I found that though a motion has the goodwill, support, and sympathy of other Members of the Opposition side, nevertheless, for party reasons or for other reasons, support has not been forthcoming in actual fact in the concrete form of a signatures, I must nevertheless express my indebtedness to the Barisan Sosialis as well as to the independent Member for Joo Chiat for having come to my assistance very often in the past in order to bring matters of national moment before this Assembly. Sir, I am indebted to the Member for Hong Lim who, becoming conscious of the unfairness of the existing provisions, was good enough to bring the matter to the attention of this House in his motion and thereby started the machinery in the Standing Orders Committee. Sir, the Report of the Committee is a compromise between the suggestion of the Member for Hong Lim and the existing position. If adopted, it means that in future an independent Member, or a single representative of his Party, may have a motion tabled, and may in this Assembly rise to move it, and it is only at that stage that the Speaker will require that the Member signified support in principle. This is a considerable improvement to the existing position, and I would like to take this opportunity. Mr Speaker, of expressing appreciation for a very helpful provision, not only to the Member for Hong Lim who initiated it, but also to the constructive efforts of the Member for Cairnhill who showed considerable conciliatory abilities and contributed to a solution at a stage when it seemed that the adamant P.A.P. intransigence would prove overwhelming. Sir, in conclusion, may I say, with respect, that I am indebted for the very considerable assistance and guidance given by you in this matter. I am happy to support this motion.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson is very profuse with his thanks this afternoon. But he reserves his position vis-a-vis the other Members of the Committee who probably do not see eye to eye with him. May I just remind the House that in, the Report, page A3, it has been stated very clearly the practice that is followed in other legislatures. In Australia, the Federation of Malaya, Ceylon, Canada, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Nigeria, no motion can be proceeded with unless it be seconded by somebody else in the House. We should as far as possible try to keep our Standing Orders as close as possible to those of the Federation of Malaya, particularly in view of the fact that everyone in this House has agreed upon the principle of merger between Singapore and the Federation. It would indeed be invidious if we follow one set of rules and the Federation of Malaya follows another set of rules. But perhaps the Member for Anson would make a particular note that even in Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria, no motion can be proceeded with unless it is seconded on the floor of the House.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the following amendments, as recommended in paragraph 8 of the First Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A. 8 of 1962, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly:- '(a) Standing Order No. 31: Paragraph (2): In line 3, leave out "shall" and insert "may". '(b) Standing Order No. 35: (i) After "35", insert --- "(1) No private Member's motion shall be proceeded with unless, upon the notice of such motion being read, support thereof or in principle shall be signified to the Assembly by at least one Member then present in the Chamber or unless the notice of such motion has been signed by a supporter or supporters under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Manner of giving Notices)." (ii) Re-number paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as (2), (3) and (4), respectively.'.

2.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. *That this House deplores the undemocratic action of the Government in preventing representatives of the workers, students, rural dwellers and professional organisations from *The same motion also stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck. exercising their civic rights in discussing matters of national importance affecting all of them, and condemns the Government for using its Police Force on 9th and 16th June, 1962, to intimidate and prevent meetings that were to be held at the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union to discuss the Referendum Bill; and calls upon the Government to immediately stop its repressive actions in denying the people and their organisations their fundamental democratic rights and civil liberties. Sir, I am sure all of us in this House vividly recall the banning of these two meetings referred to in this motion and the circumstances under which the meetings were banned. Sir, the reason given by the Government in its Press statement on 9th of June, which was subsequently published in the Sunday Times dated 10th of June, meant that because there were riots following the formation of the Civil Rights Convention in 1956, therefore, there would be riots this year. To refresh the minds of Members of this House. Sir, perhaps - I do not have with me a copy of the Government statement - but I will read out what the Straits Times reported in its Sunday edition on the 10th of June, 1962. "The Government has information also that these persons will at this meeting form an organisation similar to the 1956 civil rights convention committee in order to promote further agitation," the statement said. And it added: "Their move is in fact a repetition of the history leading up to the riots of October 1956."' In fact, Sir, in the statement, the Government went to the absurd extent of suggesting that the Civil Rights Convention in 1956 was organised by a Committee of 11 members and that the Trade Unions Working Committee which called these meetings at the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union was also composed of 11 men and that, therefore, riots would follow. Sir, this is utter stupidity and shows that even logic has departed from Government propaganda. However, Sir, this suggestion, that because there was rioting in 1956 there will be rioting in 1962, must be examined and answered at the outset. And I propose to do this before I recount all the events that led up to the meetings and the circumstances under which the meetings were banned. Sir, the Government suggestion meant that the purpose of the Trade Unions Working Committee was to incite rioting. Firstly, Sir, one cannot assume that the riots in 1956 were the result of the Civil Rights Convention, and one cannot assume that the 1956 riots were caused by the organisers of the convention. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister himself made suggestions to this effect in this House in 1956 when he sought to move a motion condemning the Government for its arrest of people who were closely associated with the Prime Minister in his political life. Secondly. Sir, it would be wrong to assume that there will be riots if these meetings of the trade unions and civic organisations are permitted. I fail to understand how the P.A.P. leadership could be so absurd in their reasoning. To say that there were riots in 1956 because there was the Civil Rights Convention and, therefore, there will be riots in 1962 if the Trade Unions Working Committee were allowed to organise a convention is as absurd as to say that because Mr Harry Lee was in Fraser's Hill playing golf in 1956 and there was a riot in Singapore, there will be another riot in 1962 should Mr Harry Lee run to Fraser's Hill to play golf ---

I wonder who Mr Harry Lee is. He is a stranger in this Assembly.

Harry Lee, prior to 1959, Sir, was the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party. He happens to be the Prime Minister of the Government and, to keep in line. Sir, I should substitute "the Prime Minister" for "Mr Harry Lee". Sir, are the P.A.P. so desperate that they have lost all sense of logic? It is not necessary for me to illustrate further their muddled thinking. However, it is interesting to draw the attention of this House to one aspect in the comparison of the Civil Rights Convention and the present Trade Unions Working Committee. It is that the Prime Minister is now not the legal adviser to this Committee or to the unions which attended the meeting called by this Committee. Sir, if nothing else, this fact may yet show that there will be no rioting in 1962. Lastly, Sir, let me stress that a study of the events in the past has shown that whenever there was rioting, it was preceded by police provocation. If there were no provocation, there would be no rioting. Sir, the Government banned these two meetings which were called in the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union to discuss matters of national importance. The first meeting, Sir, which had been scheduled for 9th June, 1962, was to have been attended by representatives of trade unions, rural dwellers, University students, professional organisations and other civic organisations. The second meeting, Sir, which had been scheduled for 16th June, 1962, was to have been attended by representatives of trade unions only. Sir, both these meetings were convened by the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee, a Committee of liaison officers of about 40 trade unions representing a total membership of more than 100,000 workers. Sir, this Committee was appointed on 5th June at a meeting held by representatives of over 40 trade unions. This Committee was appointed in the context of a situation wherein the civil rights of workers and of our people as a whole were being shamelessly threatened by a discredited Government. The 5th of June meeting was called to discuss the Government's attitude to the National Day celebrations organised by these trade unions. This meeting, Sir, also discussed briefly the Referendum Bill. It is interesting, Mr Speaker, to note that the Government took no action whatsoever to ban this meeting nor did any riots result from it, and it also took no action whatsoever against similar meetings in the past. Sir, you will recall that sometime in May these very unions had enthusiastically accepted invitations from the Government to participate in the Government-sponsored National Day celebrations. However, a few days later, the unions announced their withdrawal from the celebrations at the Padang. This was because the unions became aware of the P.A.P. Government's intention to make use of the National Day celebrations as political propaganda in support of their infamous merger proposals. The Government was planning to interpret the turn-up at the Padang as indicative of mass popular approval of the P.A.P.'s plan to shackle the people of Singapore with their merger plot. Sir, this is the characteristic behaviour of the P.A.P., dishonestly distorting the people's wishes and expressions. These characteristics of the P.A.P. leaders, Sir, have now successfully invaded and entrenched themselves among the laws of the country. And, Sir, we have the Referendum Bill as an outstanding example which has managed to pass through this House in spite of the overwhelming opposition to it amongst our people. Sir, in order to frustrate this dishonest scheme of the P.A.P., the trade unions decided to observe the National Day with separate celebrations. A rally of workers was organised to be held on 3rd June at the Happy World Stadium. An application was made for a permit; a permit was given subject to ten conditions which included a ban on the display of national emblems. Sir,I do not `want to read out the ten conditions, but I do want to draw the attention of Members of this House to a few of these conditions. The condition that prohibited the display of national emblems was condition No. 6, which reads: 'Persons attending must not display national emblems.' Sorry, Sir, this is not from the Straits Times. This happens to be from the only English language newspaper which contains the truth, and that is the Plebeian. And I must recommend it to this House to read. This is the Plebeian, a fortnightly paper for the common man. And it happens to be the organ of the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, the condition which I read out just now is interesting because this was supposed to be in connection with the National Day celebrations. National Day celebrations are celebrations which trade unions want to observe, and yet one of the conditions was that they should not display national emblems. One other condition that I want to draw the attention of this House to is condition No. 2: 'No processions are formed either proceeding to join the assembly or leaving the assembly on the termination of the meeting.' Sir, here "procession" does not necessarily mean a procession where banners are carried and where hundreds of people march. A procession can mean, I am told, five people walking together. Sir, although the conditions were difficult conditions to be strictly observed, the trade unions were prepared to go on with the rally. But at the very last moment, the Government issued a statement saying that if any of the ten conditions was breached - any of the ten conditions was breached - the registration of the trade union concerned would be cancelled. As I said, it is almost impossible to ensure that none of the conditions is breached, for instance, the two conditions that I read out. It is difficult -

Order. I have followed the hon. Member carefully. This is in relation to something that happened on 3rd June. It does not seem to be touched upon by the motion which deplores the action of the Government in preventing workers, etc., from exercising their civic rights in discussing matters of national importance affecting all of them, and condemns the Government for using its. Police Force on 9th and 16th June - preventing representatives from exercising their civic rights in discussing matters of national importance. I do not know how this ties up.

Mr Speaker, I appear to be dwelling on this, but what I, in fact, seek to do is to briefly set out the circumstances under which the Committee which convened the meetings on the 9th and 16th was formed.

Order. I did anticipate that. But I think the Member is going into too much detail. If he is just leading up to that point, then he can touch on these incidents very briefly.

Very well, I will not go into further details. It was clear from the conditions and from the Press statement that the Government in its desperation would use any excuse to deregister the unions. In the face of this threat, the unions were not able to celebrate National Day and the rally was cancelled. Following this, on 5th June, the 40 trade unions met and discussed the whole situation, including the threat posed to the people and the workers by the Referendum Bill. At this meeting the Trade Unions Working Committee was appointed to convene a delegates' meeting of various trade unions and civic organisations. As I have pointed out earlier on, the Government took no action whatsoever to ban the meeting held on the 5th of June as it had taken no action whatsoever to ban similar meetings in the past. Accordingly, the Committee convened a meeting of about 100 organisations to consider a declaration on the Referendum Bill. Here I must say briefly that we must not lose sight of the threat posed by the Referendum Bill which naturally aroused apprehension among the workers who were represented by these organisations. Sir, the P.A.P., burdened with the guilt of its treachery to the people, was bent on checking the expression of all popular views of the people and the organisations. Burdened with this guilt, it was also looking for any excuse to remove from the scene any organisation that opposed and exposed its evil designs. Sir, on 9th June, in the 7 p.m. news of Radio Singapore, a special announcement of a Government statement was made. In this statement, the Government threatened these organisations. And if I may briefly read what the Sunday Times of 10th June has to say: 'An hour before the meeting was to be held [you will note, Sir, just one hour - in fact, it was less than one hour; they could have very well informed the Committee very much earlier] in the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union in Bukit Timah Road, the Police issued this warning to the organisers, "Call off this illegal assembly or face immediate action.' Sir, this Government statement was put over the radio as a special announcement and, at the same time, scores of police and Special Branch officers were sent to the premises of the Motor Workshop Employees' Union where the meeting was to be held and the members of the Committee were each served with a letter which said that the meeting was a public assembly and, as such, illegal. Sir, an account of what happened from here onwards is given in the Memorandum of Appeal to all Members of this House sent by the Working Committee of the 40 trade unions. Sir, although the members of the Committee were advised and were fully aware that the meeting was not a public assembly and that it was well within their rights to proceed with the meeting, they called it off because they knew the intention of the Government. Sir, the Government have been looking for some excuse to provoke violence and step up their repressive measures. In the face of open provocation by an unreasonable Government, the unions on their part showed extreme reasonableness. They showed the same restraint and reasonableness they had exercised on previous occasions, particularly in the case of calling off the National Day celebrations. Sir, following this disgraceful Government attitude of denying free discussion on the unfair Referendum Bill, of denying the democratic rights of, free association and free communication, the Trade Unions Working Committee proceeded to convene a meeting of the 40 odd unions in order to report on the grave situation that had arisen. In other words, they merely convened a meeting of the same people who had appointed them to report back. This was the meeting, Sir, which was convened for Saturday, 16th June. A meeting of union representatives of this nature was not unusual in Singapore. There are precedents. The Government had never interfered with such meetings in the past. It is needless to say that the P.A.P. leaders themselves, including people like the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, etc., had convened similar meetings in the past. In fact, the Prime Minister used to be a regular speaker in these meetings in the years prior to 1959. However, Sir, the Government once again was determined to deny these organisations the right to discuss matters that affected all of them. On the afternoon of 16th June, the Committee's Chairman and the Secretary were informed that the meeting would be unlawful - only this time by the Registrar of Societies and not by the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police. Sir, once again, the unions cancelled the meeting. The primary consideration for the cancellation of the meeting was to prevent the Government from having an opportunity to incite violence. I must say that at the second meeting on the 16th, there were more policemen than there were in fact at the first meeting. Sir, in calling off this meeting, once again the unions showed extreme restraint and reasonableness in the face of direct provocation. Sir, one could not truthfully say that the unions wanted to create trouble. Had the unions wanted to create trouble, had the unions wanted to incite violence - as the Government suggest the obvious thing to do was to carry on with the meetings. Sir, if the objective of the unions was to create tension and violence, obviously they should have continued with their plans for the National Day celebrations for example. They should have deliberately defied the Government conditions, for example, the one banning the display of national emblems, and invited Police action. Sir, even though the unions and their leaders had repeatedly shown their reasonableness, the Government accusation is that they are subversive elements and that they want to provoke violence. The facts clearly show that the act of provocation was on the part of the Government even to the extent of sending police officers to challenge the Secretary of the Trade Unions Working Committee to go on with the meeting. Sir, if Members of this House will read the memorandum that has been sent, they will find the exact words used in the challenge to the Secretary of the Trade Unions Working Committee. The facts show beyond doubt that the unions have been tolerant. The leaders of these unions who are accused of being dangerous adventurers have shown restraint and they have been extremely responsible, The repeated cancelling of legitimate meetings - meetings that conform to the rules and regulations of the unions, meetings that were legally constituted, meetings that were not uncommon in the history of the Singapore trade union movement - cannot be said to be acts of unreasonableness. Sir, these are not actions of men who want trouble or want to be provoked into trouble. As I have said, there are precedents for similar meetings. These are known to some Members of the House. As I have said, the Prime Minister himself has been associated with such meetings in the past and, Sir, only recently after his world tour, in early June this year - I believe it was on the 1st of June this year - the Prime Minister addressed a meeting of some trade union representatives on Malaysia at the Headquarters of the St. John Ambulance Brigade. Sir, the convenors of these meetings had no doubt whatsoever that the unions were acting within the constitutional authority of their respective registered organisations. The Government, in disallowing these meetings, merely said that they would constitute public assembly. Sir, in a letter dated 9th June, 1962, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police stated that the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee was organising a public assembly, I should like to read this letter which is, in fact, attached to the Memorandum of Appeal to all Members of this House. It is dated 9th June and the first paragraph reads: 'It has come to my notice that you and certain other persons calling yourselves the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee have organised a public assembly to be held in the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union.' Sir, he also suggested in this letter that the promotion of that meeting would be an offence, but he did not quote any relevant law to substantiate this suggestion. Paragraph 2 reads: `I have ascertained that you have not applied for and obtained a permit or licence to hold or conduct such assembly; and I am therefore to warn you that you and your colleagues on the Working Committee and any other persons responsible for the promotion of such assembly will be committing an offence if you hold such assembly as planned by you.' Sir, when pressed for further explanation, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police stated in his letter of 14th June, 1962, that these meetings would be public meetings in that they came within the definition of "public entertainment" in the Public Entertainments Ordinance, 1958. Sir, I refer to the letter dated 14th June addressed to the Chairman of the Trade Unions Working Committee. The second paragraph, after the first line, says: `I am advised that addresses, debates and discussions at any place to which the public or any class of the public has access would come within the definition of "public entertainment" in the Public Entertainments Ordinance, 1958.' Sir, he further stated - though very vaguely in his letter - that there were provisions in the Minor Offences Ordinance which could also be applied. But he did not quote any particular sections of the Ordinance. This was on the 14th. Subsequently, Sir, on the 16th June, 1962, the Registrar of Societies stated in his letter that these meetings would be in contravention of the Societies Ordinance. Sir, I must say quite categorically that the issue involved is essentially a political issue. The denial of free association and free expression is, in fact, a denial of a fundamental democratic right. It is not an issue which involves merely legal technicalities. Sir, we are aware that the Government is seeking to hide behind some silly legal technicalities. This, Sir, is the tragedy of a shameless Government which does not have the decency to allow the people their basic rights. Sir, a Government which makes unfair laws has no moral right and no justification to use those laws to deprive our people and their legitimate organisations freedom of expression. In short, a Government which is capable of shamelessly making a law like the National Referendum Bill has no moral right to justify its act by unfair interpretation of unjust laws. However, Mr Speaker, on the legal aspect of the issue, the position is quite clear as far as we are concerned. The Government has sought deliberately to give an unfair interpretation to the laws concerned. The Government's interpretation, Sir, is ridiculous. The legal opinion given by a leading firm of advocates and solicitors has been attached -

T. T. Rajah.

- has been attached to the memorandum to Members of this House. I can assure the Minister for Health and Law that the opinion is not got from Mr T. T. Rajah, who happens to be the legal adviser to the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, I am told that, for purposes of etiquette, it is not desirable to advertise the name of the legal firm.

Advertise T. T. Rajah.

I have said that Mr T. T. Rajah is not the person who is responsible for giving us this view. But if -

Order. I do not think it is right for the hon. Member to quote a legal opinion from an anonymous person. He can adopt those arguments as his own. But I cannot allow something to be quoted which is by an anonymous person. I take it that the Member understands the position. He can adopt - the arguments as his own.

Mr Speaker, I have authority to quote the name of the firm, if it is necessary; but what I do want to do is to quote from the opinion itself.

Order. But I have indicated to the hon. Member how he can do it. He can adopt it as his own argument. Although he is not a lawyer, he is entitled to put forward legal arguments.

I want to get this clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a point of guidance. I want to know whether it is - possible to quote at least parts of the opinion itself.

That the Member cannot do.

I know that, Mr Speaker.

Order. I hope the Member does not think that he is being hamstrung. I am only indicating what the proper procedure is. Any Member may quote any opinion as his own. He adopts that opinion as his own. He can just say, "I am advised that this is the law" and that is the law.

That is exactly what I am going to do, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now that the interpretation the Government has given to the law is, in my view, ridiculous. Sir, I wish to quote here what I am advised to be the legal opinion of the interpretation of the relevant Ordinances. Sir, for our purposes: `An unlawful society is any club, company-, partnership or association of ten or more persons that is not registered.' I am reading from page 2 - somewhere in the middle of the page: 'The hundred persons together with the nine do not constitute a society because they have not constituted themselves in any way.' The hundred persons referred to the persons who attended the meeting and the nine to the Trade Unions Working Committee. Sir, the Trade Unions Working Committee originally had 11 members. When it was pointed out by the Registrar that it was not possible to have eleven members, two were knocked off and the Committee was composed of nine members. `They do not have any organisational attributes of a club, company, partnership or association but remain merely delegates attending a meeting. Any other construction of section 12 will again lead to the most absurd result. Every person attending the forum organised by the University of Singapore Students' Union on 19th June would have committed an offence. When Radio Singapore invited eleven newspapers or news agencies to send representatives to attend a meeting and submit questions to a political figure, and they did attend, they would constitute an unlawful society. So would a Press conference similarly attended. Occasions such as these occur frequently without anyone being prosecuted under the Ordinance. This leads me to believe that the proposed meeting would not be an unlawful society whether of nine persons or of 109 persons.' Sir, I wish to add here that it is common knowledge that there are hundreds and hundreds of social gatherings every day in Singapore where more than nine people attend. The Prime Minister himself calls Press conferences of more than eleven reporters. Sir, a strict application of the law will simply mean that all these gatherings are unlawful assemblies and that before they could meet they must get a police permit. Sir, in 1956, the Prime Minister was the legal adviser to many trade unions in Singapore. He was associated with meetings of a similar nature in those days.

I warned them often that it was illegal.

Order. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to rise on a point of elucidation.

Yes. On a point of elucidation. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The legal adviser does not undertake the responsibilities of the criminal. What he does is to tell an intending criminal that what he is doing is running the risk of violating the law. If the criminal wants to carry on with it, the legal adviser does not thereby become a criminal. He has advised against it.

If the Prime Minister is a little patient, I will come in due course to what he has just said. I was saying that he was associated with meetings of a similar nature in those days. As a legal adviser -

On a point of information. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Is the Member aware that every one of those meetings that I attended had police permits granted - at Bukit Timah, Jurong, Woodlands?

Sir, I am sure the Prime Minister can say what he has to say after I have finished what I have to say first. Sir, as a legal adviser, he admits that it was his responsibility to see that these organisations that he advised conformed to the laws of the country. The fact that he associated himself with such meetings and the fact that he did not tell the unions - this we have ascertained, and I shall, Mr Speaker, Sir, in due course, refer to a particular meeting, and then find out whether the Prime Minister advised against that meeting. However, even if the Prime Minister - even for purposes of argument - advised the unions to take out a permit, and, in fact, the unions took out a permit - the police gave the permit - surely now that he is the Prime Minister of the State of Singapore, why does he not want to give the unions a permit to hold this meeting? Sir, I am not saying for a moment, neither are the unions of Singapore saying for a moment, that we want to carry on holding meetings without police permits. Sir, never mind about trade unions. Political parties which are represented in this House were denied police permits to hold a meeting only last week. I shall deal with it in a short while. Sir, I am sure that the Prime Minister is not going to suggest that he participated in unlawful meetings and advised on their promotion knowing the meetings to have been unlawful. In 1956 the Prime Minister was the legal adviser to many unions which took part in the Civil Rights Convention. Sir, my understanding is that he never warned them that it was against the law to hold such a convention. He never warned that trade unions were contravening the Trade Unions Ordinance in participating at the convention, as the Government statement suggested, when banning the two meetings called by the Trade Unions Working Committee last month. Sir, to my simple mind, the Prime Minister's conduct in 1956 must have been necessarily due to one of the following three reasons: (1) He did not know the law; (2) he knew the law and he knew that the meetings were perfectly legal; and (3) that he knew the law and he knew that it was not lawful but in fact he - wanted the Unions to get into trouble and thus he did not advise against it. Sir, I cannot think that the Prime Minister, who was then a prominent lawyer, would have acted on the grounds of the last reason because that would have been unethical. It cannot be suggested that he did not know the law - that is reason No. (1) - for that would be an insult to his intelligence. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the logical conclusion that I can come to is that the Prime Minister knew the law and he knew that it was perfectly lawful for trade unions to participate in such conventions. Sir, the motion before the House rightly condemns the Government for using its police force on the 9th and 16th of June to intimidate and prevent meetings that were to be held in the premises of the Motor Shop Employees Union. The Government objective was clearly to prevent the unions from holding any discussion on the Referendum Bill, no matter what the consequences were. The Government, in using the police force, was consciously trying to provoke trouble. Sir, an atmosphere of tension was created by the deliberate presence of uniformed policemen and Special Branch officers. Sir, riot vans were kept waiting. The scene was set by the Government itself to create an explosive situation. Sir, the Government's intention to provoke trouble is clearly seen by the fact that it was only at the very last moment that they sought to inform the organisers that the meeting of the 9th of June would be unlawful. It was only in the words of the Straits Times, one hour before the meeting was scheduled to start that the Government announcement of the banning of the meeting was made. Sir, today we have a Government that is prepared to go to any limit to continue its political life. The Government is prepared to pass unfair and undemocratic laws which are in conflict with the fundamentals of democracy. The P.A.P. leaders who call themselves democrats, who profess to be champions of democracy, are today by their very actions, destroying the very foundations of a democratic society. Sir, the P.A.P. seeks to use this Assembly and the Government machinery to ensure the continuity of its political life. Today, to the Government, the value of this legislature is only to the extent that it will enable them to make unfair laws. Today, Sir, the Government is seeking to bring about a police State where the people will be denied the right to express their legitimate grievances, where the people will be denied their basic right to organise themselves against traitors. Sir, this is not the way of democracy. We are at the moment seeing a systematic suppression of popular expression of discontent. The people must be given peaceful and constitutional avenues of expression. This is being denied today by an unfair Government even to Opposition political Parties. As I briefly mentioned earlier on, the Council of Joint Action was denied the right to hold a convention. The parliamentary democratic system which the P.A.P. leaders profess to defend is at the cross-roads today. The people have watched the system being abused, and the P.A.P. leaders are to blame themselves for this exposure of the system. It is not the people they call Communists. Sir, the damage done already is considerable. From now onwards, the people will be more vigilant and any further abuse will necessarily result in our people losing all faith in this system, and in all constitutional means of expressing their grievances and by necessity, they may turn to other perhaps more painful means of expressing themselves. If such a development takes place, the P.A.P. will have to be responsible. Today, Sir, there is no fundamental difference between the S.P.A., which also help to show the abuse that can be use made of of the parliamentary democratic system, and the P.A.P. There is no fundamental difference between the previous Government and the P.A.P. Government of today. Sir, it is very clear now to everybody that they both say the same things, they do the same things and they vote the same way. The Prime Minister, Sir, at one time denounced the undemocratic acts of the previous Government. But today, he indulges in the same act of denying our people civil liberties -

And much worse.

And much worse, and this time he gets the active support of the people that he denounced prior to 1959, the S.P.A., and he gets this support in this very House. The very political life of the P.A.P. Government depends on the support of the S.P.A., the people who were denounced by the P.A.P. then as a reactionary anti-democratic force. Sir, the P.A.P. Government today survives with the support of the S.P.A. which was already rejected by the people in 1959 for its anti-democratic acts, and it is only a matter of time before the people give their verdict on the P.A.P. Today, Sir, the Prime Minister's difference with the Member for Cairnhill is not in the principle of arresting political opponents without trial. But the difference is only in the timing of the arrest and the circumstances under which the arrest should be made. Sir, only recently the position was different in that he used to tell us that the Tunku would know how to deal with naughty boys -

That is true, you know.

But today he further shifted and indicated his stand along different lines -

No. Do not -

Order.

Sir, I do not have the quotes with me. But if the Prime Minister likes them, I shall look them up -

Please do.

- and bring them to the attention of this House. But I remember, Sir, during the series of radio forums he did say at one time, indicated at least, that he would do the arrest himself provided those who were arrested were not looked upon as martyrs by the people. There is no fundamental difference. The difference is in the circumstances. Sir, I must tell the Prime Minister that this is not the way of democracy. This does not mean, as the Prime Minister is in the habit of saying, that we are afraid. On democracy there is only one authority I can quote, and that is the Prime Minister himself. I just want to quote two very brief passages. It is in col. 726, Hansard, Vol. 1, of 21st September, 1955. Sir, today we are told that all these undemocratic acts are necessary to fight the Communists and to fight his political opponents who are anti-democratic. Sir, I quote from col. 726: `If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself.' Sir, in the context of this motion, they hold meetings of trade union representatives at which the Prime Minister propagates Malaysia. But trade unions which do not subscribe to that, which refuse to be tools of the P.A.P., are not allowed to hold meetings to discuss matters that affect their membership. Sir, one other short quotation of the Prime Minister in col. 831 of 12th October, 1955. These were the days when he was a different man altogether: `If we believe in freedom, then we must concede that same freedom even to those who do not honour it in the way we do. Further, if we want freedom to survive in this part of the world, then we must live it and not just talk it. If you want the people of Singapore to fight for democracy and freedom, it is no use telling them. "Ah but one day we shall have this freedom, when we have destroyed Communism, when we have destroyed the P.A.P., and when we have destroyed any force which threatens to bring about a social revolution."' Sir, here the P.A.P. means the P.A.P. of 1955 and not the P.A.P. of the present day. Those are the two quotations of our Prime Minister who claims to be the only man who can save democracy -

We never said that.

- and parliamentary democracy in this part of the world. I am glad he says he never did, and if he never did, and he does not believe that he is the only champion, then let him at least help others who believe that democracy can only tick if the people are given participation in the system. Sir, the Prime Minister has forgotten his earlier pronouncements. This clearly indicates that he has changed his views and his beliefs. I must say that all traitors will sooner or later settle accounts with the people. Sir, the legal aspects under the Minor Offences Ordinance, the Societies Ordinance and the Public Entertainment Ordinance are clear. But the P.A.P. has also threatened the unions with the Trade Unions Ordinance. The unions have been told that holding discussions on the Referendum Bill is inconsistent with the objects of a trade union. We are asked to believe that civil rights are matters of interest only to organisations like the United Nations. I shall quote again the Government statement on this. This is a statement of the Government issued on the 9th of June and published on the 10th of June in the Sunday Times: `"It is the view of the Government that the protection of civil rights is within the province of organisations such as the United Nations Associations and not of trade unions and societies constituted and recognised for entirely different purposes,".' Sir, we are seriously asked to believe by the Government that civil liberties are matters that only concern organisations like the United Nations Associations. The trade unions have been threatened that their registrations will be cancelled if they carry on activities of this nature. The P.A.P., in fact, now says that protesting against the Referendum Bill is politics. We believe that the Referendum Bill affects every aspect of our people's life. We maintain that the Fascist features of the Bill are matters infringing the civic rights of our citizens and workers. More than 90 per cent of our population are composed of workers and their dependants. It is the business of the unions who represent the workers to safeguard the interests of the workers in every respect. In the constitution of almost all the trade unions, the object is very widely stated as generally to promote the material, social and educational welfare of the members in any lawful manner as the union may deem necessary. I am advised that the legal opinion on the definition of this object is such that it includes a variety of things; it includes matters that affect the workers, whether in their industrial relations or in their intercourse in society. I must say here that not only trade unions that are branded as Communist front organisations, but also other organisations like the University of Singapore Students' Union, the University Law Society, the Medical and Dental Surgeons Union, the National Journalists Union, have all expressed their contempt for the undemocratic features of the Referendum Bill. Sir, the Government's reply to the students was to publicly ridicule them. This is the reflection of the respect the P.A.P. has for the views of our people, be they students or workers. The P.A.P. has, in fact, stirred up a hornet's nest and is now trying desperately to cover it up with repressive measures. People are not going to let them get away with it so easily. It is silly for the Government to chide the University students. Let us give them more credit for their intelligence. They are not children. They are grown-ups. Let us remind the Prime Minister who, in fact, himself at a talk given to the Polytechnic students sometime back said that in Asia it is the young that decides the destiny of a country. Perhaps he has also forgotten -

No, no.

He has forgotten this also. But, Sir, even if we were to assume that discussing the Fascist undemocratic aspects of the Referendum Bill is taking part in politics, even if we were to concede this point, let me quote what the P.A.P. leaders said about trade unions and politics. Let me quote the Prime Minister first. I refer to col. 60 of Vol. 1, of Hansard, 27th April, 1955: `Next, may I, after being somewhat uncomplimentary on the Emergency Regulations, compliment his Minister for Labour for the prompt assertion and categorical statement that trade unions should be allowed to take part in politics? Some other gentleman who thought trade unions should not take part in politics but should form organizations as they do in America has now been put into premature retirement and I think that is just as well for himself and for the public which he never served.'. Sir, that is the Prime Minister. Let me quote a few more examples of the P.A.P. thinking on trade unions and politics. Let me quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture in col. 450 of Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 7 of 13th August, 1959: `Sir, previously it was a popular thing for trade union leaders to say that trade unions should keep away from polities. But the workers never at any time believed that unions could be kept away from politics.' Let me quote the Member for River Valley in col. 465, of Vol. 11 again: `In the past, trade union leaders have always been warned to keep away from politics. But genuine trade union leaders,-' mark the words, Sir, "genuine trade union leaders" - `from their own experience, know that sometime or other they have to seek the support of politicians to achieve results. Those leaders who do not believe that politics is part of trade unionism usually perish.'. That came from the Member for River Valley. And let me quote, Sir, the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary - in col. 467: `The Member for the Southern Islands has advised the Minister for Labour and Law to exercise care so that the labour movement will not be involved in polities. I wonder, because, if one follows the labour movement or political developments closely, I think the one cannot be separated from the other. I think the labour movement must be closely related to political developments because, if any action by the labour movement fails, then they will have no alternative but to fight through political channels.' And, Sir, if one were to have the time to sit down and read the Hansard, he can find more quotes. Therefore, Sir, all this talk of trade unions being told that civil liberties are matters of interest only to the United Nations is nothing but a bluff deliberately made to try and mislead the public. Sir, even the P.A.P. has conceded that the Referendum Bill is not democratic, but has tried to justify this by saying that these undemocratic features of the Bill are necessary to fight the Communists. Sir, I have already quoted what the Prime Minister's views were on theories of this nature. Sir, the P.A.P. leaders are probably aware themselves that many of their acts are contrary to democratic practice. But they try to justify their actions by saying that this is how one should deal with the Communists. Sir, the Minister for Finance has expressed his theory that one must on occasion depart from democracy in order to deal with the Communists. Sir, I must remind the House that this is exactly what Hitler did. As we know, Germany ended up with a Fascist regime under the Nazis with so-called National Socialism led by Hitler himself. This is a curious thing - National Socialist. Sir, the National Socialists in Great Britain today openly preach Fascism. I am grateful to the Sunday Mail for having published a very interesting article, and if you have noted it carefully, the Sunday Mail also carried a picture of the National Socialist symbol which very closely resembles the P.A.P. symbol.

Which you were proud of.

I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not one of them who decided whether we wanted the symbol or not. Sir, today the P.A.P. leadership in Singapore claim to be national Socialists and practise Fascism. Perhaps it would not be out of place, as I have already stated that even the national socialist movement in other parts of the world, one way or the other, preaches Fascism. Sir, today we are witnessing in Singapore McCarthyism. This is precisely the bankrupt philosophy of the anti-Communists. We saw it once before being put into practice by the Lim Yew Hock Government and we all know what has become of the Member for Cairnhill and his very close colleague, Mr Chew Swee Kee. Sir, if the past is any indication of the future, then it is safe to assume that the Prime Minister perhaps will end up as a tin miner in some remote corner of the Federation of Malaya provided, of course, the Federation Government will accommodate him. Sir, anti-Communism is a negative philosophy and our Prime Minister himself has said this in this House many times. The P.A.P. has been forced by the personal ambitions of some of its leaders to become a reactionary force. As the Member for Bras Basah said recently, the P.A.P. has departed from its original aim of building a socialist Malaya. Now the P.A.P. leaders know that their actions are undemocratic. But they still try to stifle public opinion. Because the P.A.P. leaders are afraid, they are taking repressive measures. This is the tragedy of renegades. When bogus working class leaders realise that they have lost the support of the people through their own folly, they indulge in repression. As the days go by they become more desperate because they feel the anger of the people mounting and so they have a number of police escorts day and night to protect themselves from the people. Sir, the more desperate they become, the more repressive they are in their actions. The degree of desperation is an indication of the measure of their weakness. It is also, Mr Speaker. Sir, an indication of the strength of the opposition. Sir, the P.A.P. leaders are politically bankrupt. After the life of this Assembly, with or without merger, the P.A.P. will disintegrate. There will be no more spoils. Some of the leaders may attempt to set up iron or tin mines, if with nothing else, at least with P.A.P. funds which have been accumulated from contributes from P.A.P. Assemblymen for the last three years. I am told, Sir, that they have in the kitty something like half a million dollars.

Order. I do not know how all this has got anything to do with the motion. If the hon. Member is trying to insinuate or import innuendoes into those statements, he is completely out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was merely trying to tell the Members of this House who sit on the Government Benches of the consequences of their undemocratic actions - whether it is banning two meetings of the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee or refusing the Council of Joint Action the right to hold a convention. I have nothing more to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, except to repeat: the people are watching the way the democratic system - works. If the government of the day cannot give the people their basic and fundamental rights for free expression and free association, then the consequences will be that the people will lose faith in the democratic system. And this will not be brought about by acts of the people called Communists but by acts of desperate politicians. Question proposed. 4.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has attempted to paint a picture which often they wish were true, for then the battle, as far as they are concerned, would be so much easier if only the Government would intimidate and take repressive measures, woud be corrupt, would be ineffective, would be stooges like the last one, then we could be disposed of, then we would wind up with Tun-ships and iron mines and tin mines. He has even suggested - and I was cheered to see you thought our reputation should not be so unfairly imputed - that we have amassed a fortune of half a million dollars. He does know, Sir, how that sum has been accumulated - not the way Mr Chew Swee Kee did it.

But those are contributions from Assemblymen.

That is so - the honest way. An honest Party building up funds for a long-term fight.

On a point of explanation, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

May I explain. Sir, that I wanted to say that this half a million dollars in the P.A.P. kitty was got as contributions from P.A.P. Assemblymen, and I have my own contributions there?

For a good cause, and we shall ensure -

That they will be used for tin mines.

We shall ensure that that money will be spent on a good cause. Sir, this is a different situation. He has quoted me in extenso what I have said before. But it is a pity that he did not quote what I have so often preached to him. I have had occasion to say in this House that the democratic system is open to competition only to those who compete to run it, not to those who compete to destroy it. Sir, the basis for the condemnation is the result of undemocratic action of the Government in preventing representatives of workers, students, rural dwellers and professional organisations from meeting as a convention on two occasions, the 9th and 16th of June, because we intimidated them. Those are the words of the motion - "undemocratic action", "intimidate and prevent meetings" and "calls upon the Government to stop repressive actions". Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very strange phase we are going through at this moment. I do not think we shall see again for a very long time the events that are taking place. I was only commenting the other day to the Member for Thomson: how different everybody wants to appear from his normal role. Everybody wants to look something different from what he actually is.

Thought projection.

No, Sir. Physical evidence. Only the other day his Secretary-General, who was a great representative of the workers, the proletariat, came to the C.P.A. Room with a polka-dotted silken scarf and a coat, looking something quite different. No longer the ragged proletariat. Now, Sir, in the old days they would have said, not becoming of a representative of the workers, students, rural dwellers and professional organisations. What are they? Rural dwellers are peasants. It is the combination of the workers and the peasants that brought about the revolution in China. And the professional organisation is their national bourgeoisie.

You are anti-peasant, are you?

No. I am all for them. But I am all against their being exploited and their name being used for purposes that they do not subscribe to. The S.R.R.A. and the men who run it are no more peasants than Karl Marx was a peasant. However, let us get down to the facts. Because it is on these facts that this whole tirade of abuse has been poured out. Traitors. To whom? To the Communist cause? We never subscribed to the Communist cause.

The people's.

We have always said what we believe in: An independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. We never believed in a Communist Malaya and we have not the slightest intention of helping to bring about a Communist Malaya. We do not mind if they do not like it. That does not make us traitors to the people. Nor are we intimidated. Sir - [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, neither are we intimidated by our being reminded of the anger of the people. Anger, Mr Speaker, Sir, settling of accounts. These are some of the phrases, words of combat - systematic suppression, Council of Joint Action, turn to other matters. They always think of turning to other matters. Well, I hope they do not. If they want any piece of advice, for old times' sake, I give this to them: just be peaceful, act peaceful, and maybe it will be less painful.

Let us play according to the rules.

Fascists, Hitler; now, Sir, repression, desperate men, desperation -

Desperadoes.

Desperadoes. True, Sir, these are words of extravagance. What are the facts? On the 9th June a meeting was planned at the Shop and Factory Workers Union, 4th branch, Bukit Timah. I know the premises well and so does the Member for Thomson. In fact, I used to look after those premises since the owner went back to China, one Mr Lim Chin Kok. He was the nominal owner. Now the unions are not even paying rent. One of these days the Public Trustee, on behalf of the owner, will have to enforce payment of rent. These are things which will have to be settled. These are proper accounts, financial accounts, and will have to be settled. That was the scene where the actual combat took place. I went into those premises immediately after the combat took place to try and salvage the property that belonged to the members of the union. There was real combat - broken glass, broken windows, 300-odd chaps staged a last-ditch stand against tear gas, broken bricks, glass, mortar, cupboards, tables. 200-odd people were sent to gaol for that incident in October. That was real combat. That took place in 1956, six years ago. The Member for Thomson is not unaware. He once entered the premises with me while the tear gas was still strong in the premises. Maybe he has forgotten it. That place has history. That is why they went back to the 4th branch at Bukit Timah. To revive old memories. Commemorate old events.

You had your meetings there.

Five-one-three: what the Chinese call "Wu I-san". The Chinese, Mr Speaker, have got a good mnemonic system to help the memory. Five-one-three, and it evokes Five for May, one-three for 13. There were innocent students at King George V Park being beaten up by brutal policemen. This incident that took place in the 4th Branch was following on 9:1:8. 9:1:8 was the 18th of September, 1956, when the purge started. That was the consequence. Now, Sir, what happened this time? They were going to reform a front organisation. I knew the Human Rights Convention well. I watched it with great interest and I saw it being perverted with considerable effectiveness. The same group of chaps appeared under different guises each time - Jamit Singh, Harbour Board Staff Association, turns up as Chairman or Committee member of Human Rights Convention. The same group of chaps, the same handful of people running around under different names and aliases, and giving an impression of massive solidarity. Well, Sir, we decided that history is not only unlikely to repeat itself as in 1955-1956, but we will ensure that it does not repeat itself, and that there will be none of this formation of Peasants Workers National Bourgeoisie Alliance, all in the name of the Communist Party. Let each union carry on its work; let each society discuss whatever it wants, even if it is Communist-dominated, for the time being. So be it. But let them not seek more trouble for the community by ganging up. So we pointed out to them what the law was in polite language, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will read out to you the letter of the 9th of June: The Ministry of Home Affairs was informed on the 8th of June that there was going to be a meeting on the 9th of June. A decision had to be taken whether or not a meeting which was known to be illegal was allowed to go on. This is not just a meeting to have a cup of tea, to celebrate a wedding or to enjoy music - Johann Strauss or Bach. This was the beginning of an adventure, of a campaign, a convention. You do not come together to celebrate a wedding at a convention. Conventions are meant for certain specific purposes over a period of time, and the same men - I will read the details which are better known to my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs - first formed this convention and collected themselves together as a Committee of Eleven to celebrate May Day. Then they reformed, changed the name, carried on the Association to celebrate National Day. Then they carried on. Now they say "Campaign against Referendum". Campaign merely against merger - that is what it is all about. Well, Sir, this was the letter written by what the Member for Thomson calls a "Fascist Police Force". "Dear Sir," it begins, and ends up "Yours faithfully,". `It has come to my notice that you and certain other person calling ourselves the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee have organised a public assembly to be held in the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union. 87 Bukit Timah Road, at 7.30 p.m. on the 9th of June, 1962. I have ascertained that you have not applied by and obtained a permit or licence to conduct such assembly, and I am therefore to warn you that you and your colleagues on the Working Committee and any other persons responsible for the promotion of such assembly will be committing an offence if you hold such assembly as planned by you. The police will be obliged to take immediate and appropriate action against the persons responsible or promoting the assembly if you and your colleagues insist on holding the assembly tonight at 87, Bukit Timah Road, despite this warning which I am giving you. Yours faithfully,'. It turned out, Sir, that the police officers politely appeared at the premises of the S.T.U., which was the former Shop and Factory Workers Union, Middle Road, with polite letters in despatch books to be signed to ensure that everybody was adequately informed and apprised of their position. Sir, they met. There were no riot squads, no riot vans, no beating of heads. That is not the way this Government governs. We do not believe in a show of force. We do not think it is necessary. We believe it is easier to play the game according to the rules. If they by-pass the rules, so be it. But let us inform them of the rules. They need a permit. They have not a permit. We inform them. They disperse. Then they issue truculent statements. Let me just quote you passages of this truculent statement: `The fascist hand of the Singapore Government showed itself more clearly once mote when it barred the holding of a meeting to discuss the grave threat to democracy that is embodied in the Referendum Bill.' A threat to democracy, Sir? What are we talking about? A Bill for which we allowed from its first introduction in January - seven months of gestation. Amendments we moved to counter their own unprecedented, evil-intended amendments. We never did anything undemocratic in that Bill, contrary to the Constitution. Nobody is prevented from expressing what he wishes in any referendum, but we are making it unprofitable for them to do foolish things. Sir, they dispersed. Meanwhile, they issued provocative statements: "We want to see the Commissioner of Police. We demand an explanation." Well, Sir, authority is always open to challenge - and in a democratic society with an independent judiciary, which even the Member for Anson has not dared allege to be otherwise than independent - there are ways and means of challenging authority. But truculent statements demanding interviews with the Commissioner of Police. Is that the constitutional way out? However, the Commissioner, on the instructions of the Minister, was told to be polite. So he wrote them a letter. On the 14th of June he said in a letter: `I would assure you that I have obtained legal advice on this matter. I am advised that addresses, debates and discussions at any place in which the public or any class of the public has access would come within the definition of "public entertainment" in the Public Entertainments Ordinance, 1958. The exception in respect of meetings of registered societies and registered trade unions only applies where persons who are not members are excluded. In my opinion, therefore, a licence under the Public Entertainments Ordinance, 1958, is required, and if no such licence is obtained, the Police will have to take action under the powers given in that Ordinance.' Then he goes on in paragraph 5 to say: `But if the persons who attend the proposed meeting constitute themselves into an association of ten or more persons, they would constitute, unless registered, an unlawful society, and action may be taken under the Societies Ordinance. Any society or trade union which attends the meeting or sends its representatives will be subject to the rules and regulations relating to the society or trade union and to the over-riding provisions of the Societies Ordinance and the Trade Unions Ordinance. Where a society is used for purposes incompatible with the objects or rules of the society, action may be taken against the society under the Societies Ordinance.' Similarly a trade union. Right, Sir. They were then called up by the Registrar of Societies, by which time they had discovered that their Committee of Eleven was an unlawful association. They had written in to the Registrar to say that they were a Committee of Eleven Trade Unions Working Committee, so-and-so was the President, so-and-so was the Secretary, and these were their objects. But now they discarded two Committee members: saying from eleven they were now nine. The Member for Thomson said now they were within the law. So they decided to go on with it on the 16th, and this was after the letter had been sent to them on the 14th. On the 15th we got information that they were going to go on with the meeting regardless of the consequences. So on the 16th we decided that the point at issue must be taken, namely association itself. There were many contraventions of many Ordinances - the Public Entertainments Ordinance, the Minor Offences Ordinance, and so on - that require penalties; this, that and the other. But the Ministry decided, after discussion, that the point at issue must be taken, because the thing was going to repeat itself. If they could not succeed this way, they were going to try some other way. And the point at issue is association for purposes which we consider incompatible with good law and order. This letter was sent on the 16th: `I refer to the report in today's Straits Times of a proposed meeting of delegates from 40 trade unions to be held tonight at 7.30 under the auspices of the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee, of which you are Chairman. I would refer to our interview in my office on the 15th of June, 1962, with regard to the activities of your Committee, when you informed me that the membership of your Committee had been reduced from eleven to nine. It would appear from the report of the proposal to hold tonight's meeting that you are under a misapprehension as to the law. Since our interview, I have been advised by the Law Officers that irrespective of the fact that the number of persons forming your Committee does not exceed nine, any meeting comprising ten persons or more in all, whatever its nature or object, will be a meeting of a society within the meaning of the Societies Ordinance. Unless such a society is registered, it will be unlawful ... I am sending a representative to be present at the meeting tonight and to inform the persons attending the meeting of the legal position.' Sir, before I deal with the events of that night, may I display to you and to the Opposition Members an incident recorded by one of the Press photographers - one of our Ministry of Culture photographers of this "repressive" police action, of "intimidation" or "repression"? Sir, the photograph shows the Secretary of this Convention - The Prime Minister tabled a copy of the photograph and handed copies to Members of the Opposition.

The Ministry of Culture is quite in the open. All the Press were there. If there were any broken heads, broken glasses, they would have seen it. This was the 16th at 7.30 p.m. There was Mr Ghouse, the Secretary. Now who is the aggressor there, Sir? The man he was talking to was a police officer, representing the Registrar of Societies, who was asked to execute his duties. Sir, if we wanted to be difficult, Mr Ghouse should be in for an offence for intimidating a police officer, using violent and truculent language. I do not think there is any point or purpose in my going to answer the Member for Thomson's allegations - they are futile and tedious. They want to make out of this Government the image that they were able to make of the last Government. But we have the advantage of having seen how it was done the last time, why it was wrong, where the mistakes were made, and we do not intend that these mistakes be repeated. Therefore, when police officers go down, they are given strict instructions - to be polite, always firm but always polite, always within the law. I would say, if there is any doubt, I have a whole series of photographs - a record of the events that evening that will leave nobody in any doubt as to who was the violent and aggressive party. Let me just read out some of the incidents that took place - this was the 16th. This was between 7 and 8.30 p.m. Representatives of the Registrar of Societies attended together with Ministry of Culture photographers. Then Mr Ho Piau - I know Mr Ho Piau, Sir, he is not a friend of mine, but I have known him for a long time - a very hot tempered young man, excusable because he is not mature, a very aggressive chap. He wants to impress the world that he is a great fighter for human rights and workers' rights and on with the revolution. Well he turned up, very aggressive, and he was given a copy of the letter. He raised his voice and said, "I don't want the letter," The police officer explained to hint that it was only for his own good that he should read the letter. He refused. Then Mr Dominic Puthucheary came on the scene. Sir, he is another young man - a brash young man - and he wants to prove to the world and to himself that he is a brave man. He stood with me and the Member for Farrer Park and said, "What now?" Hands on hips, gesticulating while he was pointing his finger at me, nearly thumping me on the chest. And this was the way he behaved to the police officer. He said, "The Police should not force the letters on the representatives." The officer told him that they not forcing letters on the representatives. They were only doing their duty by letting, those who went in know that they were going to participate in an illegal meeting. Then Dominic Puthucheary closed the iron gate, and asked for the representative of the Registrar of Societies to come in. Now, Sir, who is the aggressor in all this? The representative of the Registrar of Societies had been given strict instructions not to allow any incidents to be construed as provocation. He had done his duty and informed everybody present of the position by distributing these letters in all languages for the convenience of those who cannot have friends do the translation for them. The letters were distributed in all languages. They then met and they called off the meeting, quite sensibly, Mr Speaker, Sir. The whole procedure had been observed. Everybody had been properly informed of the position. Had they proceeded, the law would have taken its course. So they decided that they should abide by the law. But not till they had gone to see a lawyer and he had written his learned opinion. Sir, I do not wish to be my own lawyer, and I would like to read only one passage of the comments from the S.A.G.'s Chambers on this lawyer's letter. I do not want to bore the House. I think I will just read two short paragraphs which will set out the absurdity of the proposition which the Trade Unions Working Committee have put to this lawyer. I do not know whether it was for a fee, but obviously, according to the explanatory note, the accompanying advice must have been a professional piece of work. And on the advice and the instructions of the facts from his clients, he gave this advice, and this is what the Government's Legal Department, the S.A.G.'s Chambers, had to say: `One does not usually come across a committee without some form of organisation for which the committee is responsible. The word "committee" is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as "a body of persons appointed or elected for some special business or function"'. This is the Trade Unions Working Committee; Hussein Jahidin, President; Mr Ghouse, Secretary. Both gentlemen are known to me, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Ghouse is particularly, I think, known to the Member for Joo Chiat. Sir, if such a committee invites delegates from 40 unions or a hundred associations to attend a meeting or convention to protest against this, that or the other, and continues to meet as such, what else is the body of persons attending it, except an association of more than ten persons, for that object? The point may be technical, but it is a valid point in law. Guests at a tea party or a musical recital are a different kettle of fish. That is, if they really were not foregathered to admire folk dancing - genuine old Chinese classical folk dancing, an exposition of the Chinese guitar or of the flute - that is a different kettle of fish. They usually meet on one occasion only. The team varies from time to time. Invitees need not attend. Their common purpose is a social one and the thought involved is the pursuit of an object as used in the definition of "society". They sip their tea; listen or not to music or speeches, as they think fit, and they do not indulge in debates or pass resolutions for or against any common course of action. De minimis non curat lex. My Latin has always been weak, Mr Speaker Sir, and needs a bit of translation. It says, according to the lexicon, "the law cares not for trifles of that nature". A meeting of delegates of 40 unions or a hundred or more sponsoring bodies with a sponsoring committee is, in my opinion, over the borderline dividing trifles from ponderables into the realm of "association". I am unable to see the analogy of representatives at a Press conference. The latter is a meeting of persons who do not always know one another and each Press representative is entirely on his own pursuing the policy of his newspaper. He does not particularly care what his rival thinks. His interests lie only in what the V.I.P. concerned thinks. Nor is there any committee of any kind. Sir, that is the legal position. I say it is quite simple. There are constitutional methods for establishing the position. There are people with many friends in the law. The Trade Unions Working Committee there is also this Council of Joint Action, I see now, strong enough to take over the work of this Trade Unions Working Committee. It is the same idea. You cannot revive the Trade Unions Working Committee. Even the Lib-Socs. too. They suffered - it does not matter. I mean it is a little awkward and embarrassing to have to use labels which you once condemned as reactionary, wicked, vile, discarded by the people; but whatever the people discard, the Communists never hesitate to use. And so this Council of Joint Action - all their boys, Mr Speaker, Sir. Nobody in his right mind watching the proceedings will not know and will not but acknowledge it. Party Rakyat - it is the same old gang. The Barisan Sosialis, the Party Rakyat, the Workers' Party. The Member for Anson knows full well what happened in Kuala Lumpur. It is on the record about his Party being captured. It is on the record publicly about what the Minister for Law has said publicly. [Interruption] Publicly. Well, he has his remedies. Mr Speaker, if lies are told about him which bring him into ridicule and contempt. As I have said, these remedies should be pursued. We must do things constitutionally. A lie cannot be killed by a counter lie. A lie has got to be nailed. And the newly-formed U.P.P. and the Barisan Sosialis - ah, sorry - Lib-Socs. 120 votes in Anson. That will do. It does not matter. People discard it: the Communists can use it. Our line is quite simple. Let us go strictly according to the rules of the game. We are not put off by all these threats that people may turn to other methods. What other methods? What are these innuendoes meant for - to frighten us in this Chamber? The Member for Thomson with his lean and hungry look, picking up big cobblestones from the road. He will not have the strength if he does not watch out, sitting up here late every night till he is groggy. He will not have the strength even to pick up a pebble, let alone big cobblestones -[Interjection] Sir, whatever it is, let me tell them this. They face an entirely different situation from l955-l

956. I welcome the Member for Thomson's interjection, because he clarified the air. Had the matter just rested with your stout defence of the rights of this Chamber, not having people throwing imputations at each other, a lingering suspicion might remain in the mind of everybody that the P.A.P. has salted away half a million dollars. Somehow, there is something shady about it. But there is nothing shady. We have put by some money for a long-term political struggle and he contributed to it. So did I. So did lots of other people. We are not going to perish and fold up and buy tin mines and vanish. No. We will be here long after the others have gone. Do not worry. I have told Members of the Barisan Sosialis that they have got enough on their plate to worry about themselves. Never worry about others, because they are in no position to waste their time about the good or bad fortunes of other people. They have enough troubles coming upon them. The wheel of fortune - Nemesis is inevitable. That is their problem. But our problem is this: to prevent a repetition of the events of 1955-l956, by any variation whatsoever. This is a stalemate for them. They are not fighting a Government that is corrupt. By their own admission it is not. They are not fighting a Government that is ignorant of their tactics. They are not fighting a Government that is weak and vacillating. Nobody is going to be reduced to a whimpering pulp of a man. Nobody - not anybody on this side. And I tell them: if they are wise - I hope they are - they will abide by the rules. It is a fair cop. If they know it is a fair cop, we know it too. And they have got to face the consequences. We are not going to use any guns, unless people use sticks and stones and ask for it. We have better weapons than that. The photographer with his camera is a much more valuable defender of democracy than the soldier or the policeman with a gun. The radio reporter with his tape recorder makes a greater contribution to truth than all the mass of lies that they can pour in their weekly diatribe. And that is the way we intend to discredit them. Constitutionally, according to the rules, to the bitter end. If it is a zugzwang, it is most unfortunate; but those who find themselves in a zugzwang and decide to throw the bits and pieces on the floor and Start from scratch will have most to regret. I only hope that all these foolish things they say from time to time, as what the Member for Thomson has said today about turning to other methods; the Member for Queenstown shaking his hand with uncontrollable rage; the Chairman of this Trade Union Working Committee, Inche Hussein Jahidin, saying in a Press statement - was it yesterday? - in virulent language, "If the people face this continual repression, they will turn to other less democratic means." 5.00 p.m. Well, let them apprise themselves of this. Here is a Government that is going to do what is right by the people, regardless of the consequences. And what is right means that the people should be informed of who is who, who is playing what role, whether it is called the Council of Joint Action with Falstaffs thrown in to make for comic relief, or whether it is called the Human Rights Convention with Jamit Singh shouting "Keras, keras!" Whatever it is, Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion in the name of the Member for Thomson is untenable. I can supply, and it is my intention to supply these photographs of the events and a factual account of what took place to the Press, and the public can judge for themselves. Were they repressive?

It is time to suspend. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.02 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we heard Hitler without a moustache making a speech like one delivered by a Fascist. The Prime Minister has not fully replied to the points raised by the Member for Thomson. He said the Government is run on democratic lines. Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us have said many things about the democratic system and our Prime Minister has mentioned the democratic system in practically every speech he has made in this House. I was very pleased to hear him saying that the democratic system should not be destroyed. But what are the facts? The people of Singapore should enjoy democratic rights. Have they enjoyed these rights? In fact, the P.A.P. Government have not allowed them to enjoy their democratic rights even under peaceful conditions and they do not allow the trade unions and other organisations to express their views, is there any so-called free competition with other political Parties? They must toe the line of the P.A.P., otherwise they cannot express any views at all. The Prime Minister means that all political Parties and organisations should toe the line of the P.A.P. Actually all political Parties and organisations should be allowed to express their views freely. We have a very good example in the Referendum Bill to show that the Government have destroyed democracy and not the unions. Mr Speaker. Sir, the Prime Minister said that these trade unions wanted to organise a united front on the same lines as the Civil Rights Convention organised in 1956. We can draw this conclusion from his speech. Today these people have formed a Joint Council of Action to show that their actions and decisions are in harmony with the fundamental democratic rights of the people. In 1956, the Civil Rights Convention was formed to safeguard the fundamental democratic rights of the people under the previous Government. I remember that at that time this Convention held a one-week meeting to protest against the Government. This movement not only gained support from the various organisations, unions and from all classes of people but also from the various organisations supported

Perhaps the Member could step a little further back, because he is coming through very loudly. If he could step a little further back from the microphone or speak in a softer voice, it would be all right.

(In Mandarin): I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The leading people at that time and the leaders at the present time are the same people. This proves that these people have not stopped to safeguard the people's rights and to fight against colonialism. The Prime Minister has forgotten a lesson he has learned. In 1956, he strongly condemned the Government. At various conventions and meetings, he spoke out strongly against colonialism and that is why some people took him to be a leader who would fight for the rights of the masses. As a result of the Prime Minister's activities in those days, he is the Prime Minister of Singapore today. But strangely enough when the Prime Minister was sitting on this side of the House in 1956, he strongly condemned the undemocratic activities of the then Government and today when he is sitting opposite on the Government Bench he should turn round to heap abuses on those who helped him in the past to become Prime Minister. I refer to those trade union leaders and the leaders of rural and cultural organisations who are now accused by the Prime Minister as stooges of the Communists. But in fact it is the Prime Minister who has changed his previous stand. It is not because these people are Communists or have carried out Communist activities. We are of the opinion that the police are necessary for the maintenance of life and property of the people. Every year, the Government spend about $20 million on the Police Force, but today it has lost the meaning of what it stands for, it is being used by the P.A.P. to deal with all trade unions, cultural organisations, students' unions and other organisations which are competing with the P.A.P. The Prime Minister pointed out to this House that the meeting intended to be convened by the Council of Joint Action was illegal. He tried to quote legal arguments to prove that the Fascist action of his Government was reasonable and democratic. The Prime Minister has not answered the various points raised by the Member for Thomson, namely, the meeting at the Headquarters of the St. John Ambulance Brigade, when the Prime Minister was present. Now this organisation has been made a puppet organisation of the P.A.P. and has been led by one Mr Devan Nair, a henchman of the P.A.P. The Prime Minister did not show that this organisation, namely, the Headquarters of the St. John Ambulance Brigade, got a police permit to hold such a meeting. I hope the Government can produce evidence to prove that the said organisation at that time had, in fact, got a police permit. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's actions, and the way the police has dealt with various matters, show more and more that the P.A.P. Government is trying to make use of the police to suppress the people's feelings of dissatisfaction with the P.A.P. We are of the opinion that every legal organisation should have the right of assembly to discuss matters of national importance. But the Government has deprived them of this basic right. The leaders and representatives of the various organisations have been elected to discuss various pertinent questions and these organisations have been registered under the Trade Unions Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance. That is why these organisations, which have been properly registered, cannot be accused of carrying out illegal or subversive activities. The explanation given by the Government is merely to hide their fear that more people and more organisations will come forward to show their dissatisfaction with the National Referendum Bill. The Government is merely hoping to suppress the people of Singapore and to prevent them from being united against this undemocratic Bill. That is why the explanation given by the Government can be acceptable only to the Government Benches and the S.P.A. The people of Singapore - can never accept the explanation given by the Government and they cannot approve the attitude of the Government. If the Prime Minister says that the democratic system exists only by peaceful democratic competition, then let the Government show that it has this democratic attitude and put it into practice, and let the people have the full right of free expression and the right of free assembly. Therefore, the motion moved by the Member for Thomson should be accepted by the Government, and the Government should rectify its past mistakes, so as to allow the organisations in Singapore to exercise their democratic right to express their views to the Government. Only in this way can you say that the democratic system is operated under free and democratic competition. If the Government believes in this, then the motion moved by the Member for Thomson should be accepted by the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the importance of this motion is inadequately enunciated, although it fumbles at what it means. The importance of the motion is not in the "undemocratic actions" - there have been many - but it is in the illegal action, the unconstitutional action of the Government. I would like to make my position clear. The Workers' Party was invited by this group to the meeting on the 9th of June. We declined on the ground that in view of the imminent sitting of the Assembly and with a representative in the Assembly, it was more appropriate to register our views, and our protests, if necessary, in the Assembly.

On a point of clarification, Sir, If I heard the Member for Anson correctly, he mentioned that the Workers' Party declined the invitation to this meeting on the 9th of June. I wonder if he is aware that a member of his Central Committee was present at this particular meeting.

No, Sir, I am aware that I signed the letter. One of us signed the letter declining the invitation to attend. I trust this is not a repetition of the Tommy Koh story. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I go on then to the important constitutional aspects of the motion before you? I wish these aspects could have been clarified in the only place which is really appropriate for such issues, that is a court of law, instead of in the political atmosphere of political bias in the Assembly. Mr Speaker, I would draw your attention to the first letter of the Acting Deputy Commissioner, dated the 9th of June. In that one he tells them that they have organised a "public assembly", and it is exclusively on the ground that it is a public assembly without a permit that he considers it illegal, and consequently sends his police to prevent the commission of an offence. Public assemblies without licence are made offences under two Ordinances. One is the Minor Offences Ordinance. There, under the provisions of section 5 there have been rules made, rules that are known as the Minor Offences Assemblies and Processions Rules of 1960, being Supplement No. 28 of the 13th of May and gazetted as S 134. Under Rule 2, Sir, it says: `No assembly or procession consisting of five or more persons shall take place in any public road or in any public place, or place of public resort, except in accordance with a permit issued under these rules and in compliance with the conditions and restrictions endorsed on such permit.' You notice, Sir, the words after "shall take place in any public road" - we take it, Sir, there is no question about this - "or in any public place, or place of public resort". Sir, if you will turn to section 5 (6) of the Minor Offences Ordinance, Chapter 117: `By amendment of Ordinance 24 of 1959, "public place" is defined as a building, park, garden, sea beach or other place to which the public for the time being has access.' It is not suggested and has not been suggested by the Prime Minister that the premises of a trade union are a place to which the general public has access. The second definition "place of public resort", means an approved place as defined in the Public Entertainments Ordinance, and there it is, "a place to which the public or a class of the public has access and for purposes of entertainment which requires licensing." That is Ordinance No. 40 of 1958. So, on the reading of that letter of the 9th of June, it is apparent that a meeting in the private premises of a trade union of persons who are there by special invitation cannot possibly be deemed to he a public assembly. This the Commissioner seems to have noticed when a protest was registered, the protest being the letter of the Committee of the 11th of June in which they asked for the specific provision of the law whereunder they had offended. And then we have the letter of the 14th of June, Sir. Here he says, "Addresses, debates and discussions at any place to which the public or any class of the public has access, would come within the definition of `public entertainment'." That is so. But again, he must have known, because he does not suggest it here, that it is not the public or a class of public that has access. The meeting was not open to, say, all members of the Indian community, or all persons who have passed the Chinese Middle III School Examination, or anything like that, and he leaves it at that, Sir. We come then to the next one, paragraph 3: "Conduct of Assemblies and Places of Public Resort." Well, that is repetitive, because that would be the same as public assembly which is under the Public Entertainments Ordinance. Again in this case, Sir, there is no suggestion that the members of the public or any part of the public, as such, were being invited. I want you to notice this, Sir, that whereas - if I may pause for a moment the action of the Government in refusing a licence to hold a national convention in the Badminton Hall was undemocratic, it was nevertheless constitutional because the Badminton Hall was a place of public resort to which the public were being invited, and consequently, the organisers required a licence. The licence should have been given if the Government sought to be democratic, but in law they were not compelled to give it and they could refrain from giving it, as in fact they refused to give it. So their action in refusing a licence to the organisers of the Badminton Hall meeting was undemocratic, in my view, but it was by no means illegal. Here, I seek to draw the distinction between what is undemocratic but legal and what is in fact illegal because I have sought to show so far, Sir, that this meeting of 9th June did not come within the terms of "place of public resort" or "public place" under the Minor Offences Ordinance or under the Public Entertainments Ordinance, 1958. Then comes, Sir, paragraph 4 - he seeks to put everything in to catch them if he can, "If persons who attend the proposed meeting constitute themselves into an association of 10 or more persons, they would constitute an unlawful society." Notice the "if", Sir. Sir, if five of us decide to call a national anti-nuclear meeting and we send invitations to named organisations to send two representatives each to a private home, no licence is required, because that is not a public assembly and there is no association of 10 or more persons for a specific purpose. Those who are coming are coming to listen. If it is then decided to form a society, then you make your application for registration of the society. But until a decision is made, Sir, there is no question of an association in law of 10 or more persons. A tenuous argument was sought to be introduced at this juncture by the Prime Minister who suggested that the fact that there were 9 members did not itself remove the group from the need from registration. It was put in extraordinary language in the letter of the Registrar of Societies, in his letter of the 16th of June where he alleges that: `I have been advised by the Law Officers irrespective of the fact that the number of the persons forming your Committee does not exceed 9, any meeting comprising 10 persons or more in all, whatever its nature or object, will be a meeting of a society within the meaning of the Societies' Ordinance.' Sir, I know no lawyer, no matter how beardless he may be or how wet around the ears, who could possibly justify that extraordinary proposition. A society begins to be a society only if there is an organised association of 10 or more persons for a specific object. In this case there were 9 persons and they were calling a meeting inviting representatives to make certain representations to them. I repeat, Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that this matter is not adumbrated in court where the position could be clearly considered in the impartial atmosphere of a court of justice and decided upon, because it is a matter of major constitutional import that the Government should not seek to act illegally. Then, Sir, we have finally paragraph 5. In that paragraph of the letter of 14th June it does not suggest that the meeting is illegal but it is a clear-cut threat. If you hold the meeting, your registration as a union may be cancelled. It means nothing else. It is clear intimidation, You can call it a warning if you like, but in the context of the letter as a whole, I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that it is in fact intimidation. I can but say that I regret, In the light of the letter of the union of the 11th of June, that the Government did not see fit to arrest one of the persons. They signed their names, they were quite frank about who they were. They did not arrest one of the persons for attempting to organise an illegal meeting and then have the issue clarified in a court of law. The Prime Minister said that the unions have their remedies. Mr Speaker, I confess they have my sympathy in this matter. They were told that they were acting illegally; they had the police around them. If they held a meeting prima fade they were acting in an illegal fashion, I admire them for their restraint and their urge to act constitutionally, that though they believed they were right, legally entitled to hold that meeting, nevertheless they refrained from doing so. I will say, Sir, they deserve credit for doing so, although it may have been a more useful approach if one of them at least had risked being arrested so that the issue could be clarified in a court of law. They have no other means, Sir, at that juncture. You know the difficulties of seeking to bring any action for a declaration of right against the Government and the tremendous technicalities involved, the delays and the expense, Mr Speaker. I would suggest to you that, apart from the lurid bedtime stories we have been listening to, purely on the legal aspects of the problem as it is presented to us in the documents before us, the Government does seem to have acted in an illegal fashion and to have abused its powers of using the police in a manner for which the law does not provide. If the Prime Minister is right in his tale, then it is a question of seeking additional powers to meet unusual circumstances. But I do say this, that in the context of the law as it stood on the 9th of June and on the 16th of June, on the face of it, the Government does seem, Mr Speaker, to have acted illegally and knowingly so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most sickening acts which show also how debased a traitor can be when he betrayed his comrades and his Party is the reference to the P.A.P. symbol tonight. Mr Speaker, Sir, in comparing the P.A.P. emblem to the Fascist Party in Britain, we see how treacherous, how disloyal and how dishonourable the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen have become since they betrayed their Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was on this very P.A.P. symbol that Lim Ching Siong, the present Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, was elected to the Assembly as the then Member for Bukit Timah in 1955.

Hear, hear!

It was under the P.A.P. emblem which they now call Fascist that Lim Ching Siong. Fong Swee Suan and a host of other Barisan Sosialis leaders addressed the masses and clenched their fists to shout "Merdeka".

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether all these references to party symbols are relevant to the motion.

I think these references were invited by the Member for Thomson. I think the Minister is entitled to go thus far, and perhaps no further; he may complete what he has to say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to go any further but just a little bit more. I just want to add that it was on this very P.A.P. symbol also that all the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen were elected to this Assembly. They did not feel ashamed at that time.

No shame!

Order.

P.A.P.

Order. [Interruption] Order. This seems like battledore and shuttlecock. You get one Interjection from the right, another from the left; then right, then left; right, and left. This reminds me of my childhood days!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe in democracy because of the greater freedom and civil liberties enjoyed by the people than is possible in a dictatorship, be it the Fascist dictatorship or the one-Party Communist dictatorship. Even the pro-Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis also pay lip service to the system of parliamentary democracy -

Kandasamy knew!

In a democracy - An hon. Member: He is getting worried.

- the individual and the community as a whole enjoy certain rights and liberties which are safeguarded by law. When the rule of law breaks down, then whatever rights and liberties that are enjoyed by the people will go to the wind. One of the functions of any Government is to uphold the rule of law and to ensure its effective operation. For this the State must have certain powers and instruments to bring forces inimical to law and order, to use the term of the Member for Anson, under control. The powers of the State are those provided for in our laws passed by the Assembly, coupled with the instruments - the police and, in times of need, augmented by the military. Laws are made by the representatives of the people in this Assembly. They are made for the purpose of affording and protecting certain fundamental rights and civil liberties to the greatest number of people. However, these rights and liberties can only be enjoyed if there is peace and good order. Therefore, the first task of any State is to maintain law and order through its police force, if necessary. The motion before the House seeks ostensibly to condemn the Government for depriving representatives of certain organisations from exercising their civic rights in calling meetings to discuss certain matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, what the motion seeks is not the protection of civil rights but the right of the Communists and their stooges to flout the law as and when they like in carrying out their nefarious activities to undermine and destroy democracy by fomenting chaos and disorder in the name of human rights and civil liberties. I shall deal first with the legal aspect of the proposed meetings called by the so-called Trade Unions Working Committee. I propose to be brief in this respect because the various points have been touched on by the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the first meeting was scheduled to be held on 9th June at the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union at 87 Bukit Timah Road. This was to be a meeting attended by allegedly one hundred organisations, ranging from old boys' associations, rural organisations, musical associations to trade unions and political parties, all of which have different objects and were constituted in a different manner. At this meeting, the organisations intended to form a body similar to the 1956 Civil Rights Convention Committee in order to promote further agitation against merger and Malaysia. No permit was applied for such a public assembly. The organisers were therefore informed that such a meeting would be illegal and unconstitutional and that if they proceeded with it, they would lay themselves open to action under the law. Further, they were informed over the radio that if the meeting was held and the purpose of the meeting was carried out, the persons concerned would be acting outside the constitutions of the unions and other organisations they claimed to represent. They called off the meeting. Further explanations on points of law were furnished by the police to Inche Hussein Jahidin and Salahudin Ghouse calling themselves Chairman and Secretary of the Singapore Trade Unions' Working Committee on 14th June, 1962. Suffice it to say, the proposed meeting on 9th June, if carried out, would have violated the Minor Offences Ordinance (Chapter 117), the Public Entertainments Ordinance, No. 40 of 1958, the Societies Ordinance, (Chapter 228) and the Trade Unions Ordinance (Chapter 154). The organisers sought to by-pass the law by reducing the so-called Trade Unions Working Committee from 11 to 9 presumably on the bright idea of a lawyer's clerk - [Interruption] - since turned professional trade unionist.

Ha, ha!

Order. The Member for Thomson is in an especially fortunate position of being able to reply. So if he makes notes, he will be able to reply to all these points. Mr Ong Pang Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a further meeting was called for on 16th June in the name of this Committee now reduced in size. The organisers were again informed by the Registrar of Societies on 16th June that irrespective of the fact that the number of persons forming the Trade Unions Working Committee does not exceed nine, any meeting comprising 10 persons or more in all, whatsoever its nature or object would be a meeting of a society within the meaning of the Societies Ordinance and that unless such society was registered - which was not done in this case - it would be an unlawful society and attendance at any meeting of such a society or membership thereof would be an offence under section 12 of the Societies Ordinance. A statement to this effect was issued by Government the same day. I do not propose to go any further into the legal aspects of this case. The Assembly is hardly a place for legal argument. Suffice it to say, if the organisers of the proposed unlawful meetings are dissatisfied with our interpretation of the law, they can seek the assistance of their legal advisers to have their grievances redressed in a court of law. Now, it is alleged in the House that the police have acted in a provocative and intimidatory manner in preventing the two meetings from being held. How did the police intimidate these tough and seasoned professional trade unionists? Mr Speaker, Sir, there were no riot vans outside the premises of the proposed meeting, and according to the memorandum of appeal to the Assemblymen by these trade unions, the intimidation was carried out by the use of flash-camera. Camera, Mr Speaker, Sir, not bayonets. The Member for Anson loves cameras. He likes his picture to be flashed all over the place. No doubt, the Member for Queenstown, or for that matter the Member for Nee Soon, feels likewise. Those of us who are not up to mischief have no anxiety about cameras, but the pro-Communists and their sympathisers have an intense dislike for the camera, because their faces cannot bear close scrutiny. They have to operate behind a front provided by innocent people. No doubt, some of the persons invited to attend these two proposed meetings belong to this category of persons who fear exposure in front of a camera. We have seen how the student agitators hid their faces behind handkerchiefs during the Secondary Four Examination Boycott. We have also seen the Work Brigade strikers dropping parangs and iron rods and scattering before a camera during the strike last year. We can therefore understand why they should make a hue and cry about a camera. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already far too much work for the police to do in the maintenance of law and order without having to cope with the additional deliberate acts of law-breaking by certain professional trade unionists. In this instance, if there were no professional trade unionists going about organising unlawful meetings with a view to wrecking merger and Malaysia, there would be no need for the presence of police officers near the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union. The police have more worthy tasks to perform than to prevent unlawful meetings called by persons who were well aware that such meetings were unlawful. In spite of the first refusal on 9th June, the so-called Trade Unions Working Committee deliberately called for a second meeting on 16th June which necessitated the presence of police officers a second time to warn the convenors of the legal consequences. Without the deliberate and provocative act of the professional trade unionists, there would be no need for police officers with cameras around. Now, let us deal with the purpose or the motive of the two proposed meetings to be held at the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union at 87 Bukit Timah Road. Ostensibly the meetings were to be called to discuss certain so-called undesirable features of the Referendum Bill. However, in fact, the proposed meetings were called to form a united front of students, old boys' associations, workers' unions, rural organisations and other people under the leadership of the Communists and their stooges to carry out various forms of agitation not against the Referendum Bill itself, but against merger and Malaysia. They hoped that in involving large numbers of different organisations and people - many of whom were innocent, though gullible - they would be able to create an impression of popular dissatisfaction and also to provide a protective cover for the Communists. A recent parallel to this attempt was the Civil Rights Convention in 1956, the activities of which eventually culminated in riots and sufferings to untold numbers of people. Before I compare the pattern of the activities of the two organisations, I should like to give a brief background of this so-called Trade Unions Working Committee. The so-called Trade Unions Working Committee was originally known as The Singapore Trade Unions May Day Joint Celebrations Committee elected at a meeting of representatives of trade unions belonging to the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. group held on 18th March, 1962, at the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union. The Committee then consisted of 11 persons with Tan Teck Wah as Chairman, Foo Yong Fong as Secretary, Chan Saye Jame as Treasurer and 8 other members comprising Dominic Puthucheary, S. Ghouse, Chang Yuen Tong, Chan Yin Ann, Visva Lingam, Chen Ee Fong, Goh Chong Kwee and Hussein Jahidin. This 11-man Committee was responsible for organising the May Day celebrations by the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. group of trade unions, student bodies, cultural organisations, political parties and rural organisations. On the conviction of Foo Yong Fong in an assault case, Mr Tan Siew Chwee took over the post of Secretary in this Committee. After the May Day celebrations on 19th May. 1962, the name of this 11-man Singapore Trade Unions May Day Joint Celebrations Committee was changed into the Singapore Trade Unions National Day Joint Celebrations Committee. So from a Joint Committee formed with the purpose of organising the May Day Celebrations, the Committee went on to other anti-national activities such as the calling of a separate National Day celebration, the effect of which, of course, was to promote disunity of the people. However, the separate National Day celebration called by this Committee was cancelled because the organisers were warned that should they pursue their intention to organise processions, the organisations concerned were likely to be considered for de-registration. It was said just now that the separate National Day celebration - to be more correct, it should be a protest meeting was cancelled by the anti-nationalists iii the S.A.T.U. unions because of the threat of de-registration if any of the 10 conditions attached to the permit was breached. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Communist stooges in the Barisan Sosialis cannot be expected to speak honestly. These 10 conditions were comprehensive and intended to cover all kinds of occasions and all foreseeable types of meetings. Although these normal conditions are attached to every permit as a matter of routine, this does not mean that all the conditions are applicable generally. In this particular instance about the proposed protest meeting on National Day at the Happy World Stadium, the Government was specifically interested in condition 3, i.e., there should be no processions. Mr Speaker, Sir, all the police were committed on National Day at the Padang where the occasion was celebrated by people from all sections and all strata of society, unlike the one at the Happy World Stadium. If the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. group of trade unions and their front organisations were allowed to defy the law and stage demonstrations along the streets of Singapore with hardly a police officer around even to look after the traffic, the situation would be very delicate indeed. Hence, the Government issued a warning to the organisers that if they persisted in carrying out their procession, they might be required to show cause why their union registration should not be cancelled. In his speech just now the Member for Thomson attempted to create the impression that the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. group of trade unions were all reasonable and law-abiding, whereas the Government was inciting violence. Mr Speaker, Sir, who are the people the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are trying to fool? These two meetings of the Trade Unions Working Committee had to be called off not because the pro-Communists were reasonable and law-abiding, but because, may I suggest, firstly, they realised these proposed meetings were unlawful; secondly, they were trying to find out to what extent the Government were prepared to go; thirdly, they were still hoping that there might be a possible hitch in the Cobbold Commission on Malaysia; and finally, the higher-ups of their command have not yet made up their minds to resort to more violent means of struggle, or, to use the words of the Member for Thomson, "a more painful form of expression". As I was saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, this so-called Trade Unions Working Committee was originally known as the Singapore Trade Unions May Day Joint Celebration Committee, re-named the Singapore Trade Unions National Day Joint Celebration Committee. Then on 31st May, 1962, this 11-man Committee was renamed again and styled itself the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee with a re-shuffle of posts. Hussein Jahidin now became the Chairman and Salahudin Ghouse became the Secretary. It was in the name of this so-called Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee that a meeting of trade unions belonging to the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. group, student bodies, cultural organisations, political Parties and peasants' organisations was called on 9th June, 1962, ostensibly to discuss the National Referendum Bill. Here then we see how a Committee, which was originally formed with the purpose of organising a May Day celebration, was turned to good use by the Communist stooges into a weapon of political agitation against merger and Malaysia. The purpose of the proposed meetings called by this so-called Trade Unions Working Committee was to build a Communist-led united front of students, old boys' associations, workers' unions, rural organisations and other cultural organisations on a common platform of opposition to Government and merger and Malaysia. This move by the Communist stooges is, in fact, a repetition of the history leading up to the riots of October 1956. The House will recall that on 28th September. 1956, there was held at the Hokkien Association premises in Telok Ayer Street a similar meeting which styled itself the Singapore Civil Rights Convention. Inche Hussein Jahidin was the front man of that meeting and was elected to the Civil Rights Convention Committee. The workings and agitation of this Committee eventually ended in the riots of 1956. The 1956 Committee, which also comprised 11 persons like the present one, also drew its members from a so-called Trade Unions Working Committee. The House may be aware that the attempt at forming a united front by the 11-man so-called Trade Unions Working Committee having failed, the Communists and their stooges attempted another one, this time calling itself the Council of Joint Action comprising five political Parties - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the Partai Rakyat, the United Democratic Party, and the Liberal Socialists. This so-called Council of Joint Action - a name which even the Member for Anson felt rather squeamish about - then picked up where the so-called Trade Unions Working Committee had left off, and attempted to revive the united front by calling a convention of civic organisations to be held on 6th July at the Badminton Hall. Now having refused the Communists and their stooges their meeting for a united front organisation through the Trade Unions Working Committee, the Government has no intention of allowing the Communists the use of the Council of Joint Action to start another convention. The Government has no intention of allowing diverse organisations constituted for different purposes from coagulating and perverting themselves into Trade Unions Working Committee, Civil Rights Convention, Council of Joint Action, etc. Attracted to the latest "Council of Joint Action" are a number of persons who are being used with their knowledge to provide a cover of respectability the Communists need for carrying out their present work. If these people continue consciously and publicly to associate themselves as co-sponsors of a Communist United Front campaign after their attention has been drawn to the probable consequences of such a Communist united front campaign, then they will be held responsible equally with the Communists and their associates. I wish, however, to make it clear to the House that the Government is not against political Parties or trade unions holding meetings for which they are properly constituted. The Government has recently approved permits to the Singapore Rural Residents' Association and the Singapore Country People's Association to hold their annual general meetings and celebrations; and the Singapore Bus Workers Union and the Wood Workers Union to stage celebrations and concerts to commemorate their anniversaries. In these meetings, bitter attacks were made against the Referendum Bill. The Government has also approved permits to the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party to hold public meetings, specially to attack the Referendum Bill. Therefore, the charge that the Government is denying the people and their organisations their fundamental democratic rights and civil liberties is utter nonsense. The charge is not only dishonest but malicious. In their memorandum to the Assemblymen from the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee, it is alleged that at paragraph 38, I quote: `The laws at present being referred to by the Government in preventing the people from discussing matters of grave concern to them have been enforced for several years. They have never been invoked to repress and suppress the legitimate expression of our people on matters affecting them by the former governments as they fully knew that such action would be a complete abuse of these laws which are meant for other purposes.' However, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out to the House that the result of such inaction and feebleness in such matters resulted in the 1956 riots, with consequent suffering and distress to a great number of people? The duty and responsibility of the Government is to see that such suffering and distress does not befall the people of Singapore again. In their memorandum to the Assemblymen, the Trade Unions Working Committee alleged in paragraph 42 that "democracy is in danger and that the democratic rights of the people are being threatened -"

On a point of order, Sir, Is it proper for the Minister to touch on this memorandum since it has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, Sir?

Not the whole memorandum. The whole memorandum has not been referred to the Committee of Privileges; only certain passages. Paragraphs 45 to 49 cannot be referred to.

It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that democracy is in danger and that the democratic rights of the people are being threatened. But the danger and the threat come from the Communists outside and from their stooges inside this Assembly. It is not the democratic rights of the people that they are interested in. What they are interested in and what their stooges are championing in this House are the democratic methods of the minority group of Communists and their stooges to threaten and intimidate all people who disagree with them, including even Members of this Assembly who are democratically elected by the people.

There I think the Minister for Home Affairs is treading on forbidden ground.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no amount of double talk and no amount of pretence will deceive the Government and the people of Singapore as to the real and hidden intentions of the Communists and the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis in wanting to wreck merger and Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, we were not born yesterday. We are fully aware of the tactics of the Communists perpetrated not only in our own country, but elsewhere. We know what their plans and intentions are. In short, we know exactly how they work to achieve their sinister ends. They manipulate their stooges and puppets. They make their puppets utter falsehoods which they themselves do not believe in. They make use of their stooges to stand in the front line while they themselves remain in the background. The Communists set up front organisations in the name of democratic institutions fighting for civil rights. They infiltrate into trade unions, student organisations, cultural organisations, political Parties and every possible institution and organisation to make it look as though these organisations are genuinely expressing their opinions. Only the very naive and the uninitiated will tag along with them in their insidious campaign to poison and pollute the atmosphere around us. Mr Speaker, Sir, the events which have taken place in Singapore and Malaya since the termination of the Second World War are still fresh in our minds. To the casual observer who recalls them in isolation, these events may not reveal much. But to those who take the trouble to follow and understand them, the nefarious activities of the Communists will clearly show a familiar pattern not unlike those found in other countries. Where armed insurrection and violence have failed, as in the case of Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines, the Communists change their tactics and strategy to that of subtle infiltration into legally constituted organisations. Where they are held suspect and cannot function by themselves, they go into alliance with men who have "respectability" in the public eye. In such alliances they exploit the genuine grievances of political leaders, student and cultural leaders, and never fail to feign sympathy and support for these leaders. Outwardly they subscribe to democratic principles and lend support to any overt expression of dissatisfaction with so-called threats to the democratic system. In their minds they have the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. But, of course, they are the most articulate in their pronouncements in support of parliamentary democracy. They do not even hesitate to out-do and out-bid innocent democrats in the call for greater democratic rights and wider civil liberties. To the Communists this phase of the activities is understood as the "minimum struggle", the maximum struggle being to oust their allies when they have gained enough strength. And so it is today when we are on the threshold of merger and Malaysia. They know what they will be in for and they know what will happen to their Communist activities in Singapore with merger and Malaysia. They accuse the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the memorandum to Assemblymen of playing up the Communist bogey. Mr Speaker, Sir, a bogey is a ghost. But the Communists are neither bogeys nor ghosts. They exist in our midst. And we know they exist. If the Communists were bogeys, then Stalin, Mao, Ho Chih Minh, Chin Peng, Aidit and all their followers were also bogeys. If they were bogeys, the M.C.P. could not have started their violent revolt in 1948. If Chin Peng was a bogey, he would not have demanded, as one of the conditions to surrender, that the Communist Party of Malaya be legalised. The House is aware that a Commission is currently sitting to inquire into the Communist activities in secondary schools. We shall see whether Communist activities in schools are facts or bogeys. No, Sir, they existed then and they are still in existence today. The only difference being that today they do not carry the Communist flag, and they do not wear the symbol of the hammer and the sickle on their shirts. They have hidden these emblems of Communism in their pockets for reasons of security - their own security and safety. In 1948 they helped to set up the All-Malaya Council of Joint Action which organised a hartal to oppose the first Federation of Malaya Agreement. Under the then prevailing circumstances, they wanted a united Malaya with Singapore. Now they do not want a united Malaya. In 1956 they set up the Civil Rights Convention. Today they are attempting to revive it to carry out their anti-merger and Malaysia campaign. In 1957 they formed the Anti-Yellow Culture Council. Now, unfortunately for them, they are unable to form a similar organisation simply because they cannot find support for such a body because the Government has done all it could to stamp out yellow culture. Likewise, they find that the people are satisfied with the education policy giving equal treatment to all streams of education. So they cannot successfully mount opposition against the Government in this field. Under the circumstances, can we allow the pattern of events we learned so bitterly in the past to be repeated? One reason why the Communists and their stooges have failed last year and this year is that now the people are already aware of the facts and the truth. The people are aware that the so-called undemocratic action which the Government was supposed to have taken at the Motor Workshop Employees Union is nothing more than a reminder to the organisers not to break the law. The organisers knew very well that an assembly of 10 or more persons not belonging to the same registered trade union or other organisations would constitute an unlawful assembly and that they would have to face action as stipulated in the law. After they failed in this first attempt to defy the law, these same mischief-makers next set about forcing their beliefs through the so-called "Council of Joint Action". Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is determined to avoid the mistakes of past years. It will expose every attempt by the Communists to build up a united front of legal organisations. It will be failing in its duty if it allows the Communists and their stooges to have their way in wrecking merger and Malaysia. The people hope the Government does not let them down this time and at any time in the future. The stakes are too big, for we are responsible for the lives of 1.7 million people whose happiness depends not on what the Communists say and do, but on what is even more vital and greater, and that is that their future in Malaysia must be secure and their prosperity ensured.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this motion. In this motion the Member for Thomson has stated very clearly our point of view. The Member for Anson has also spoken very clearly from the point of view of law. Therefore, there is no necessity for me to repeat what they have said. The Minister for Home Affairs, in a speech which lasted about one hour, mentioned Communists, Communists, more than 100 times. But he did not produce any new and fresh arguments. He was repeating the pet phrase which is used by the P.A.P., that is, "Communists, Communists". However, the Minister for Home Affairs in his one-hour speech said one sentence which was very interesting to me. He said that the Civil Rights Convention of 1956 is the same as the present one. The 1956 and 1962 Civil Rights Conventions are the same because their purpose is the same, that is to safeguard and protect the fundamental rights of the people. But we have to carefully study the sentence spoken by him. Let us recall the Civil Rights Convention of 1956. The present Prime Minister was the legal adviser to that Civil Rights Convention then and the organisers are also the same group of organisers of the present Convention. In the short period of six years, on the question of safeguarding the people's fundamental rights under the same law in the same country and by the same group of people, the Civil Rights Convention in 1962 is now termed as Communist-inspired. Why should it be like this? I have tried my best but I cannot find any difference between the present Civil Rights Convention and the one in 1956. There might be only one difference: that is, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was in the Opposition Party, but today he is the Prime Minister of Singapore. This is the only difference. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the adjournment for tea after the Prime Minister had finished his speech, I told him that the Prime Minister of today is a person who after crossing a river demolishes the bridge. I also told him that as soon as he catches a fish he forgets about the fishing net. Mr Speaker, Sir, this sort of person will be drowned in the end. When discussing the National Referendum Bill, one thing interested me very much. The Member for Cairnhill "presented" a pair of gloves to the Prime Minister which was stained with blood and filth. The Prime Minister has always said that he will never use the dirty and bloody gloves of the Lim Yew Hock Government, but today the Member for Cairnhill has presented these gloves to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is now making use of these bloodstained gloves. But there is one difference in this pair of gloves, and that is that although this pair of gloves was made in Britain, the brand is different. This pair of dirty and bloodstained gloves has got the brand of Lee Kuan Yew. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, in debating this question, the P.A.P. are not able to produce any new arguments on this matter. What they are doing is to use the pretext of "Communists, Communists". Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope my last sentence will be remembered by the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers. Whatever we do, we must not demolish the bridge after having crossed the river; and we must not forget the fishing net after we have caught the fish.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion before us is a very serious motion. I do not know the impression and feelings of the P.A.P. Government. I think if they are still capable of having some sort of feeling, they should feel ashamed of themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is like a sharp sword which has cut through the false mask of democracy of the P.A.P. Government. We want them to answer our motion which condemns the Government. I have two questions to ask. First, have the P.A.P. Government lost confidence in democracy? Second, do the P.A.P. Government want to deprive the rights of the people of Singapore? The P.A.P. Government control all its propaganda organisations. They control the Press, the radio and they even do not want the people to know the arguments put up by the Opposition Parties in this Assembly. I remember the Prime Minister said this sentence at a forum of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, which turned out to be a listening forum only. This sentence was obtained from the debate. Today the Prime Minister does not want the people to discuss things concerning their rights. From the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs as well as that of the Prime Minister, we know that they dare not face the questions, but they try their best to smear, and they push all the unsolved questions on to the Communists, as if the Communists have become the life-savers of the P.A.P. Government. The attitude of the Government is pitiful. At the same time, it is also known for political opportunism. Let me say three things about the speech of the Prime Minister. Just now he has said that the Barisan Sosialis Party has been used as stooges by the Communists. But I think this is ridiculous. Do you say that if we are going to achieve the fundamental rights of the people, we are being used as stooges by the Communists? I can say truly that the Prime Minister has become the stooge of the reactionary power today.

7.12 p.m. The Prime Minister has been very smart and clever, but today he has dropped into the mire and is unable to come out of it. Secondly, the Prime Minister has said that his Party and his Party's politics are incorruptible and that he can be proud of it. But I feel that this word "corruption" should be interpreted properly. What does it mean? It is a corrupt Government. That means corruption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that relevant to the motion?

The Member is replying to what the Prime Minister has said on this particular motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that relevant to the motion?

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is going to argue with the Chair. The Prime Minister has made his speech and she has got the right to reply to the Prime Minister.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we can see that the Prime Minister's policy is strange to him. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now I have said that the word "corruption" means corruptible. Today the P.A.P. Government is a corrupt Government. What I mean by corruption is political corruption. Thirdly, the Prime Minister has said the P.A.P. Government has a stand on this point. If the P.A.P. Government has a stand, it is ridiculous. We can say it is an opportunistic stand. Actually we cannot say it is a proper stand at all. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we believe that in a democratic struggle we must proceed in a peaceful and constitutional way for the welfare of the people. We have rights and we have faith. We have found out the position in which these organisations concerned have been put. They have been deprived of their rights. In the struggle against colonialism, in constitutional progress, and in the reunification of the two territories, these democratic rights are most important. What little democracy we have been enjoying are the results of our struggles in the past. All the suppressed peoples of the world and those colonised and suppressed countries have stood up bravely, struggling to secure the people's democratic rights and to secure their welfare and their future. These have been the objectives of these peoples. This is something the cunning British colonialists cannot stop. The United Nations in 1960 passed a resolution about the colonial countries. I hope that the P.A.P. will abide by that resolution. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Thomson.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one very significant sentence comes out of the long speech by the Minister for Home Affairs. I think he asked, "Are we to allow the pattern of events we learned so bitterly in the past to be repeated?" He posed that question in the House. But I do not know whom he meant by"we". Surely it was not the P.A.P. who learned the pattern of events. It was the P.A.P. who formed the pattern of events. But if the Government now, having been a party to the pattern of events in the past that have brought misery and hardship to the people of Singapore, are prepared to learn the mistake of their ways and are now willing to nail their erstwhile friends with whom they had worked together, there is no reason why we, as a responsible Opposition, should do what he did when he was in the Opposition. We did our best to contain the Communists. We did what we thought was right for the good of the country. But it was he who led in the formation of that pattern of events which is now unfolding itself. But there is one difference in this pattern of events, Sir, In 1956 it was I who stood on the other side facing the Communists, aided and abetted by the P.A.P. Today it is the P.A.P. Government that has to face the same Communist threat. But I can assure the people of Singapore that the S.P.A. will at no time aid and abet the Communists to overthrow the Government. Sir, I heard from the Member for Havelock that I have presented a pair of gloves to the Prime Minister. If he is so anxious to know what I have presented to the Prime Minister, may I tell him that through my actions against the Communists in 1956 and 1957 I presented to him the government under the new Constitution? I am happy that after having received the present of being in the government, he is now having a dose of the medicine which he gave to me when I was in the Government. My hope is that having to swallow this bitter pill, the P.A.P. will really mean business when they say that the interests of the people of Singapore should be protected. They want to do it in the way that they think is right. Events will prove whether they are right or whether they are wrong. But I would like to say that I agree with the Prime Minister that this pattern of events is really coming to the forefront. There have been indications in the past few days, and in fact in the past few months, that the Communists are mounting a campaign to damage merger, or what is more correct to say, closer association with the Federation of Malaya. They are, in this attempt, adopting the same tactics that they adopted during my time. The Prime Minister, who was with them the other time, now knows that the best way to meet them is to do what he has been doing. Since this is a fight by the Government against the Communists, it is our duty not to make the job more difficult for the Government. But since it is a retracing of the pattern of events that took place in 1956 and 1957 when the P.A.P. was in the lead, the S.P.A. will abstain. 7.25 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we long ago expected that the Barisan Sosialis and their fellow travellers wanted to smear our stand. We believe that everyone knows that when we of the P.A.P. will not go with them into a blind alley they will resort to certain means to try to topple the P.A.P. In a short space of time, the people have seen clearly their motives and actions. They have been trying to use the word "democracy" to cover their viciousness. They hoped that the Government would make use of the police to deal with the students and to have conflicts with the workers. They hoped that the Government would make things unpleasant. But the P.A.P. in all these things have made preparations. We associated with them for some time. That is why we can understand them quite well. For instance, say, when the parents are staying with the children, the parents, of course, know the character and behaviour of their children. That is why when we parted ways with them, we prepared steps in anticipation of what they would do. Although in the past one year there was such confusion in Singapore, the Government peacefully passed through the unnecessary turmoil and confusion created by them. Their time is numbered. As time passes, their ruthless actions and motives will be all the more exposed to the people. Just now my colleagues and the Minister for Home Affairs explained clearly the various actions taken by the Government. It is because the Barisan Sosialis want to resort to their ways to condemn the P.A.P. that they have brought up a motion in this House. They realise clearly that the P.A.P. have all along adopted the correct stand. If we want to seek political rights, we must do it through peaceful and constitutional means in accordance with the wishes of the people. Have they now forgotten about all this? They have been guilty of double talking. They should know that the P.A.P. will not act contrary to their principles. We will struggle for the interests of the people under our Party banner and in accordance with our principles. They have talked about forgetting the net after catching the fish and destroying the bridge after crossing a river. Now I throw back all these phrases to them. They can apply them to themselves. 7.33 p.m.

Sir, I think we have just seen how the Member for Cairnhill tried to encourage the Government to repeat the action which he too has been trying against the people, the dirty work that was carried out in 1956. We have all along been saying that the Lim Yew Hock Government are one with the Lee Kuan Yew Government. The Lee Kuan Yew Government have to depend on the Lim Yew Hock Government to prop them up in office. It is always the Communists and the Communists. The Prime Minister has said it is the Communists who are against merger; it is the Communists who are against the referendum. Let me remind you once again, Sir, that in Singapore today the vast majority of the people are against this merger and against this dirty referendum. Are they all Communists? In the Borneo territories, the Ibans and the Dyaks are all against Malaysia, and in Brunei all the Malays are against Malaysia.

Order. May I remind the Member for Queenstown that we are not debating Malaysia at all? We are debating a motion moved by the Member for Thomson and the Member for Havelock. So these arguments on Malaysia and the referendum have been completely irrelevant to the motion which we are debating now.

I agree with you, Mr Mammen, Sir, It is a pity that these remarks were allowed to come from the mouth of the Member for Cairnhill. I have to rebut them. Sir, they have been talking about freedom of speech, free association, assembly and publication. Let us remind the P.A.P. Government once more. Laws are made by men and not men made for the laws. It is the spirit of the law that counts. Any dirty government can interpret the law to suit its own convenience. I have had the personal experience, Sir, of being charged by this P.A.P. Government for having convened an assembly - a similar type of assembly, Sir - and this Government saw to it that I was fined $40. It is not that we really broke the law, Sir. The law says that you are not supposed to cause violence; you are not supposed to be disorderly. There is no suggestion whatsoever in this particular case that there was any commotion or any disorder. Yet the Government saw fit to prevent any public expression of condemnation of the Government. Everybody in town is against the Referendum Bill, and if you do not allow people a free means of expression to condemn the Government for its dishonesty and dictatorship, what other opportunities are left for the people to give expression to their feelings against the Government? Is this not one of the ways of the Government to provoke the people to some other method of protest against the Government? The mere fact that they had to employ all the Special Branch police to go along to this union headquarters with flash-bulbs all over the place showed that they wanted to intimidate. Sir, this camera business has been used by many previous governments. They want to have records of the faces of Mr X, Mr Y, Mr Z, and the whole idea is to identify that man or woman and make sure that the future of that man or woman will come to grief as long as that government is in power. We know, Sir, for example today, that there are prominent businessmen who have been pressured to say what the Government want them to say. They pressure them by withholding passports. They pressure them by inconveniences in their business. They pressure them by special investigations into what they have - their money and their property. Sir, there are many ways of pressuring people and the camera is just one of the lot that is used in the case of the trade unions.

You have a camera also.

I do not have to answer this. He never knew what he was talking about. For example, when the students had their faces photographed their pictures were recorded and if in future they should ever apply for jobs as teachers or in Government offices, they would be turned down. What other avenues of employment will be open to them? This is the P.A.P.'s special way of intimidation which everybody objects to. I only want to stress one point, Sir.

Stretch your imagination further.

You must allow the people a chance to express their grievances in a peaceful and constitutional manner. The Government talk about parliamentary democracy. I have already pointed out to you before that it is the failings in our human material that have caused the failure of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. [Interruption] What we see in the Referendum Bill goes to prove exactly that. The P.A.P. are so ashamed of the Referendum Bill themselves that they want to bury it quickly. That is enough indication -

Come to the point.

- to you that they are undemocratic, that they are dictatorial and that they are dishonest. The Minister for Home Affairs mentioned "Communists", "pro-Communists", I think, about 200 times. I am sure his speech must have been written for him by the Special Branch. They have no other material. [Interruption] I have on many occasions spoken on this Communist label. Many years ago, they used the label "Socialist and Labour". Seventy years ago, it was "Radical", and it is not unreasonable to say that 1900 years ago, the label was "Christian". Today, they say "Communists and Reds".

Say something new.

Yes, I would like to hear something new from the Minister for Education. He has nothing to say. He cannot say anything. But since we are going to stop at 8 o'clock tonight, I would like to remind our Government Ministers and the P.A.P. Assemblymen that if they want people to work peacefully and constitutionally, let them give the people a chance to work peacefully and constitutionally. I think the Prime Minister himself said not so very many years ago that if you are a democrat, you will at least allow your enemy the very same facilities which you want to have yourself. Let them not kill democracy in the way they have been interpreting the law - just to suit themselves and not the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I had not intended to speak. When the Member for Queenstown said that the Communists of today are like the Christians of 1900 years ago, I felt that that would lead to confusion because the Christians, Sir, put God as No. 1, whereas the Communists put one man as No. 1 and they must obey him regardless of their conscience. That is the essential difference, Sir. 7.43 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad that at least the Barisan Sosialis are able to touch some soft part of the Members of the Singapore People's Alliance - if not a part that yields to a sense of logic, at least it is a part that yields to things connected with religion and the higher ideals of moral rearmament. Sir, I do not have very much to say in reply because the Government Members have only cried Communism in reply to the speech I made when moving the motion. Besides that, they have not put forward any argument to justify why these two meetings called at the Motor Workshop Employees Union premises by the Singapore Trades Union Working Committee were disallowed. Sir, I am sure we are all tired of listening to this cry of Communism over and over again. I do not want to make it any more tiresome by replying to the Communist bogey that the Ministers saw fit to raise once again in the debate before the House. Sir, all that I wish to do is merely to touch on one or two points that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs made in the course of their speeches. Sir, the Prime Minister - I have only one point to deal with in his speech - suggested that in 1956 the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union, 87 Bukit Timah Road, was the scene of rioting. And now the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee convened the meeting on the same premises, and, therefore, there was something sinister. Sir, this is typical of the bankruptcy in his arguments. It is typical of the absurdity of the arguments the Government Members put forward. This is only an indication of the fact that they disregard logic, even in their propaganda. Sir, if one looks through the records of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union, one will find, besides the meetings called by the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee, besides the meetings called by the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union itself, there have been numerous other meetings held. Meetings convened by the People's Action Party itself were held on the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union. What was the Prime Minister trying to suggest? Because on the 26th of October, 1956, there was a violent scene on the premises of the Motor Workshop Employees' Union, does it mean that every meeting held in the Motor Workshop Employees' Union will necessarily end in violence? Sir, I pointed out earlier on that if the Government had no intention of wanting to provoke violence, they could have informed the convenors and the organisers well before 7 p.m. on the night of June 1962. No, they chose the last moment. Why did they want to choose the last moment to inform that the meeting was banned? The news was flashed in the 7 p.m. news over Radio Singapore. If they had informed the convenors earlier in the day, morning or in the early afternoon, there would not have been anybody going to the premises of the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union. As I said, no, they thought fit only to inform at the last moment. They knew that delegates would be coming to the premises. They knew that when they discovered the meeting was being banned wrongly, they would be in a fit of temper. To make matters worse, they had their police force to indulge in very provocative acts. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said there were no riot vans. I am sure if he checks up his records, he will find that riot vans were parked near by the premises of the Union. And if they want photographs, we ourselves are quite prepared to produce photographs to show where the riot vans were parked and who were the chaps who were guarding them. Incidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it reminds me - once the Minister for Culture said if we were to produce a picture showing the use of police on the workers, he would give us $50,000. Sir, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union has published a very good picture - in fact, a few good pictures - of police assault on the workers in their organ called the Baybuck, and nothing has happened. I do not see the Minister for Culture making any suggestion that he is happy that we published these pictures. But, in any case, now, if they are doubtful, if they think we are dishonest in saying that there were riot vans, we are quite prepared to produce pictures to show that there were riot vans. The Minister for Home Affairs said that all that happened was police photographers taking photographs. He thought fit to make fun of some Members of this House. Sir, I do not think anybody who attended the meeting at the premises of this Union on the 9th and 16th were afraid of being photographed. I am personally not camera shy. I am quite certain that nobody was afraid of being caught by a camera. But the manner in which the police photographer was acting was itself a provocation. I have the advantage over the Minister for Home Affairs because I was there myself. I know how the police photographer behaved himself. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs suggested that the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee reduced itself to having nine members from the original eleven on the advice of a lawyer's clerk.

Who was the lawyer!

K. M. Byrne!

Sir, I must say that if the Committee was reduced in number, it was not on the advice of a lawyer's clerk, but it was on the suggestion made by the Registrar of Societies himself. Incidentally, again on a number of occasions, both inside and outside this House, we have heard expressions from the Government which seem to disclose an attitude of contempt and snobbery in regard to lawyers' clerks. I wonder, on such occasions, what the feelings of my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who was for a very long time a lawyer's clerk in the legal firm of Lee & Lee, are? Sir, all the legal aspects of the issue - I do not have very much to say about them - have been very adequately dealt with by the Member for Anson. I cannot do any better even if I tried.

He is a humbug.

Order.

But I can assure the Ministers and the Government Members, particularly the Minister for Law who is very anxious to know who gave the legal opinion, that whatever legal opinion the 40-odd trade unions took, whatever legal opinion the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee took, was not from what they call a lawyer's clerk. They were taken from a very leading firm of advocates and solicitors in Singapore. As the Member for Anson has clearly put forward the case, it has been made clear to us that the Government not only acted undemocratically in denying the unions the right to hold meetings, but also acted unconstitutionally. It is our view that the Government not only sought to deny the people the fundamental right to hold discussions, the fundamental right of free association and free communication, but it also sought to act unconstitutionally and beyond the limits of its powers. 8.00 p.m. Question put.

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 21; Absent, 5; Abstentions, 6; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Omar Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Chan Chee Seng. Koh, C. H. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Lee Siew Choh. Chor Yeok Eng. Leong Keng Seng. Goh Chew Chua. Lin You Eng. Kandasamy, G. Lingam, S. V. Lee Khoon Choy. Low Por Tuck. Lee Kuan Yew. Ng Teng Kian. Lee Teck Him. Ong Chang Sam. Lim Cheng Lock. Ong Eng Guan. Mammen, John. Sheng Nam Chin. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Tan Cheng Tong. M. Ismail Rahim. Tee Kim Leng. Ong Pang Boon. Teo Hock Guan. Ramaswamy, S. Wang Soon Fong. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Absent. Wee Toon Boon. Goh Keng Swee. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Yong Nyuk Lin. Marshall, David. Rajaratnam, S. Paired. Sahorah binte Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ahmat, Madam. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Lim Yew Hock. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee. Motion accordingly negatived.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock p.m.