Hansard, 1962-07-12

MESSAGE FROM THE YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA - (Assent to Bill passed) 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.

QUOTATIONS FROM RADIO TRANSCRIPTS ON MERGER - (Statement by the Prime Minister) 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.

QUOTATIONS FROM RADIO TRANSCRIPTS ON MERGER - (Statement by the Prime Minister) Any question?

QUOTATIONS FROM RADIO TRANSCRIPTS ON MERGER - (Statement by the Prime Minister) No, Sir.

PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT TO CONCLUSION ON 13TH JULY 2.34 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT TO CONCLUSION ON 13TH JULY 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.

PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT TO CONCLUSION ON 13TH JULY 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.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 2.36 p.m.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 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,...'---

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 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.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 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.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 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.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 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.'

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) Question put, and agreed to.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) No division?

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES - (Complaint by Member for Anson) 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.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (Motion) 2.48 p.m.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (Motion) 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.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (Motion) 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.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (Motion) 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.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (Motion) 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.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (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.

AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS - (Motion) 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.'.

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL 2.57 p.m.

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL 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 ---

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL I wonder who Mr Harry Lee is. He is a stranger in this Assembly.

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL 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 -

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL 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.

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL 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.

MEETINGS OF WORKERS, ETC., TO DISCUSS REFERENDUM BILL 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.