Hansard, 1962-07-13

Honourable Members are informed that there will be published in the final issue of the Official Report of Assembly debates of the present Session a record of attendances of Members at sittings of the Assembly and Sessional and Select Committees during the Third Session of this, the First Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore.

32 p.m. Resolved, "That the items of business set down on the Order Paper of this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight."-[The Deputy Prime Minister - Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), that notwithstanding the provisions of section 37 of the said Ordinance the assessable income of persons contributing to the National Monument Fund established for the purpose of constructing the National Monument in Kuala Lumpur, shall be reduced by the amount of any such contribution. Sir, I think Members are aware that contributions to useful and notable causes can be exempted from income tax, and every so often motions to this effect are put to the Assembly for their approval. This motion asking that exemption in respect of income tax may be granted to contributions to the National Monument Fund comes at a very apt moment when we have completed our deliberations on such weighty matters as merger, Malaysia and the referendum. Sir, this is a perfectly straightforward and simple matter. Where exemptions are asked from the Assembly, it is the general practice for both the Federal Parliament and the Singapore Assembly to agree to the same resolutions. For instance, last year on 7th August, the Federal Parliament by resolution exempted contributions in respect of our National Theatre Fund -

Hear, hear!

- and in agreeing to exemptions for contributions to the National Monument in Kuala Lumpur, we are merely reciprocating the sentiments held in the Federation on matters of national importance. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), that notwithstanding the provisions of section 37 of the said Ordinance the assessable income of persons contributing to the National Monument Fund established for the purpose if constructing the National Monument in Kuala Lumpur, shall be reduced by the amount of any such contribution. 2.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, *That this House expresses no confidence in the Government. *The same motion also stood in the name of Mr David Marshall. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this motion of no confidence in the Government because the political situation in Singapore has now come to a most critical stage.

For the Barisan Sosialis.

For you.

The future of all Singapore is at stake and we cannot allow a discredited Government that cater only to the selfish interests of a few P.A.P. leaders to mar and destroy the lives of 1.7 million people of Singapore. Sir, the last three years of P.A.P. misrule in Singapore -

Sama sama lah!

- will be recorded in history as the tragedy -

Of the Barisan Sosialis.

- of the P.A.P. and Lee Kuan Yew's regime, but unlike the regimes of old, when the last artificial glow of the P.A.P. is gone and forgotten, there may not even be ruins and ashes left behind.

You are going to burn it all up, are you?

Today because of the P.A.P.'s broken promises, because of their dictatorial rule, because of their Fascist abuse of power, because of their play on communal politics, because of their constant invoking of the Communist bogey to threaten and intimidate the peace-loving people of Singapore -

He loves peace!

- because of the self-centred arrogance of the Ministers, because of their blatant dishonesty, because of their placing party considerations above the national interests, because of their sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore -

By not arresting the Communists!

- and because of their unreasonably and desperately wanting to railroad the so-called merger arrangements that will bring only national disunity and unhappiness to the people of Singapore, the P.A.P. are no more a respected Government, no more a Government supported by the majority of the people, and no more a Government of the people. It is now a minority Government completely discredited in the eyes of the people, and everyone in Singapore is counting the days when the P.A.P. will finally be no more and gone for ever, never to return.

Fat hope!

For the P.A.P. it is such a short span of life - only three years - and indeed none of us would have foreseen that the life of the P.A.P. would be so short. The future of the people of a country cannot be decided by a Government that does not have the confidence of the people. We cannot allow a Government that works only for the interests of a tiny minority to impose its will on the will of the vast minority. It is a travesty of democracy and of justice and it is our duty to stop it. Sir, let us briefly cast our minds back over the last three years. The P.A.P. started on its journey of power and glory most impressively. In the 1959 general elections, the P.A.P. contested all the 51 seats in the Legislative Assembly; 43 of the P.A.P. candidates were returned, some with large winning margins. It was a triumphant victory, and more than half the votes cast were polled for the P.A.P. When the reactionary Lim Yew Hock Government -

Thank you!

- was replaced by the new Lee Kuan Yew Government, there followed a period of rejoicing amongst the people. The people were happy and they thought that at last they had elected a Government that would look after their interests and not the interests of some colonial master. But alas, such is not the case. No one at that time thought that it would be such a short passing phase in the history of Singapore politics. Never in the history of Singapore has there been a political Party in power that commanded so much .respect and had such great support of the people in 1959. Everybody had the feeling that the P.A.P. was destined to have a brilliant future and that the new political set-up would definitely come to stay and for some considerable time. But see, Sir, how quickly it has changed -

Been betrayed!

- see how quickly and how completely the P.A.P. have destroyed themselves. Never in the history of Singapore has any government given so much hope to our people and let them down so very badly, within so short a time. The Prime Minister himself had said the P.A.P. could only be destroyed by the P.A.P. deviating from its stand and if the P.A.P. were dishonest. He said that in 1959. Now, those words of his have come true. The P.A.P., by being dishonest and by having deviated from the original stand of the P.A.P. have destroyed the P.A.P. Amen! Let us briefly catalogue the milestones, so to speak, of the P.A.P.'s downfall. From the original impressive number of 43 out of a total of 51 seats in this House in 1959, the initial P.A.P. majority of 35-43 against 8 - was first reduced to 29 in 1960. Then came the split in the Party in the middle of 1961, and the majority was soon reduced to the uneasy figure of 1. Now, this uneasy one-man majority has been changed into a precarious and untenable one-woman minority. Sir, can we still have confidence in such a Government? In July 1961, with still a majority in the House, the Prime Minister introduced a motion to seek the confidence of the House. Yet today -

To draw a line separating the traitors!

- with only an untenable minority the P.A.P. want to carry on, and to carry on, they have to rely very heavily on the support of the S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance, an organisation which the P.A.P. leaders used to despise and to poke fun at with disparaging remarks. But fearing this support may be taken away from them soon, the Government will adjourn the House sine die in the fond hope that the P.A.P. Government might yet survive a wee bit longer, a hope which the P.A.P. leaders themselves know will not and cannot be fulfilled. The Prime Minister said that the P.A.P. would never ally themselves with the so-called anti-Communist forces which, according to the words of the Prime Minister himself, are often cloaked to hide the reactionary elements ranging from colonial vested interests to enemies of democracy. But see what has happened today. He has to rely more and more heavily on these reactionary elements that are enemies of democracy, and he says he is a non-Communist. Sir, even a blind man, I think, can see that the P.A.P. Government are now on their last legs and, under such circumstances, we should probably have seen the formation of some form of coalition government -

S.P.A. and Barisan?

But there is no coalition government. Neither the U.M.N.O. nor the somersaulting S.P.A. have received their due share of the spoils of government -

You try to entice them?

Perhaps there is no point in trying to have a coalition government. There may be more from the Government Benches who will take courage in time and stand up for the interests of the people, instead of just sticking around and following the tails of their leaders of the bankrupt and discredited P.A.P. Government. Let us hope they have the courage and the guts to do so, because this is their last chance. Sir, today the P.A.P. have become the object of hatred and contempt of the people of Singapore. If only the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, especially these two, should go into the coffee shops, markets and other places of gathering - that is, really going amongst the people -

You go to bars and coffee shops?

- instead of just hiding behind air-conditioned Radio P.A.P., they would better be able to sense the intensity of the people's feelings against the P.A.P.

You are a real scream!

Everywhere we go we hear that the P.A.P. is dirty - An hon. Member: Ch'ow!

They say the P.A.P. is more dirty than the S.P.A. In fact, they say now that the P.A.P. absolutely stinks. Surely, the Special Branch and other MI 5 scouts of theirs should be able to inform the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance of this feeling of hatred and contempt for them and the Government -

The Barisan.

In fact, Sir, not only in Singapore and in the Federation, but also in the Borneo territories and other Afro-Asian countries, the common talk is that the Lee Kuan Yew Government has sold Singapore down the river - An hon. Member: Singapore River stinks though!

And what is worse, the P.A.P. Ministers have sold out Singapore on a time schedule -

Oh, I am worried about that.

What phase is it now?

Sir, our debate has been guillotined and every act of the Lee Kuan Yew, Government has been timed to the pleasure of the colonialists and the neo-colonialists. [Interruption]

Sir, on a point of information -

Unless the Member will give way.

Sir,

Order. The Prime Minister cannot talk unless the Member gives way and sits down. Is the Member giving way?

No, Sir.

Scared!

The Prime Minister will have ample opportunity to reply -

No, I want only a few minutes.

But let him hear my piece.

You weary my heart. [Laughter]

Our Prime Minister and the Ministers of the P.A.P. think it is great fun. They think they can hide their great anxiety and fear of the contempt of the people and the anger of the people by laughing it away.

You laugh.

Let them realise that if they were to go out into the streets of Singapore without their array of bodyguards, we might not see them again -

Are you threatening me now?

Order. I might remind Members of the Government Benches that this is not really a mass meeting. I have not attended a mass meeting, but I understand there is a lot of heckling at a mass meeting. I suggest that this is not a mass meeting and hon. Members should try not to heckle as much as they can. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. The last words of the Member for Queenstown were really a threat. He said that if we were to go into the streets, we would disappear. Is he going to contrive our disappearance, Mr Speaker, by himself?

Do I take it then that the Minister for Finance has been intimidated?

Yes.

I ask the Member for Queenstown not to intimidate.

I will never be able to intimidate, Sir, If there is any intimidation, it is not from me. I have no arms on me. It is the people outside, who will go for them hammer and tongs and they will never be able to see themselves alive again. I was saying, Sir, that now every action of the P.A.P. has been timed to the pleasure of the colonialists, pro-colonialists and neo-colonialists - An hon. Member: Who are they?

- so that our Prime Minister can hand Singapore over to the Federation bound hand and foot on time. Let us ask: is the date 31st August, 1962?

You are getting worried?

- that shows, Sir, from what they have been saying, that they are trying to sell Singapore down the river on time -

For how much?

- in order to please forces outside Singapore.

Such as?

Sir, the P.A.P. today do not work for the interests of the people in Singapore. No, Sir, they work for the interests of people outside Singapore -

Where? Peking?

- and for that reason, Sir, they have deservedly earned the contempt and hatred of the people of Singapore the contempt of some and the hatred of more of the people of Singapore -

You do not like us, do you?

The Member for Bras Basah knew of this widespread hatred and contempt for the P.A.P., but the others all those who are still associated with the Ministers - tailing them around, condoning and conniving at whatever they do, should awaken early from their stuporous slumber -

He is using hard words.

- before it is too late. They are words not easily understood by the Minister for Education. Sir, immediately following the Party split, and even before, when the few leaders of the P.A.P. were left with an empty shell of an organisation that has leaders but no followers, the triumvirate of the P.A.P., namely, the Prime Minister, - An hon. Member: The Minister for Finance.

The Minister for Finance - An hon. Member: The Deputy Prime Minister?

- and the Minister for Culture. Anyway, Sir, the Minister for Finance is also the Minister for Culture now. So it makes no difference.

He thinks that they are all the same.

These three started the smear campaign of the Communist bogey. They had hoped by so doing that the public might be deceived as to what was going on. The P.A.P. was disintegrating, but the P.A.P. leaders attempted to paint a picture that it was all the work of a handful of Communists and subversives, and if only the P.A.P. could cleanse themselves of these so-called subversives, then all would be well. But what has happened? Only recently another Central Executive Committee Member has crossed the Floor. Is this again the work of Communists, so-called Communists, and subversives?

Yes.

Some of the Members on the Government Benches seem to know a lot more. An hon. Member: We know more about you!

And they dare not face the people and tell them on a public platform. They must hide behind Radio P.A.P. Sir, in their desperation today, the P.A.P. have labelled everything - any person, any organisation, any movement - that is against the dishonest P.A.P. dictators as Communist, pro-Communist, or Communist-inspired. The unions, because they are against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Culture, are called Communist-led unions, irrespective of whether they are unions of factory workers or of English-speaking office workers. The civic organisations and the Chinese Schools Old Boys' Associations have been similarly labelled, simply because they are against the dictatorial rule of the Fascists in the persons of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. Now the Singapore University Socialist Club and the Nanyang University Political Science Society which have organised a Gallup poll on the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals in Tanjong Pagar constituency, are similarly labelled pro-Communist. The political Parties outside the Legislative Assembly - the Lib-Socs, the United Democratic Party, the Party Rakyat all those that protest against the dishonesty, the cheating, and the dictatorship of the P.A.P. are now all pro-Communist or supposed to be made use of by Communist organisations.

Sure, that is right.

All the people who oppose the sell-out merger are Communists. All those who oppose the humbug of this sham referendum are Communists. And today. Sir, I see in the newspapers that the United Nations may be taking up the matter, and I suppose they also are Communists. [Laughter] In fact, everyone who is against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Culture, is a Communist or a pro-Communist. How ridiculous can one be? Surely they must have a sense of proportion. Is everything just because it is anti-P.A.P., anti-Lee Kuan Yew and Goh, the work of the omnipotent and the omnipresent Communists? No. Sir, it is not the Communists and subversives that have been at work, it is the bad things, the unforgivable things that the P.A.P. Ministers themselves have done, and are doing, that have given rise to such hatred and contempt, it is a demonstration of the people's discontent against the P.A.P. Government. It is the P.A.P. that have destroyed the P.A.P. And I dare say if more Government Backbenchers could pick up courage and defend the rights and interests of the people, more would be crossing the Floor of the House. And we would be able to -

Don't dream of it!

- see the spectacle and comedy of the S.P.A.-UMNO Alliance also crossing the Floor - but from the Opposition. of course, to join the P.A.P. Ministers opposite. [Interruption]

Better not. If you go there, you are finished! [Interruption]

Order. There seems to be a combined orchestra again! We have not reached midnight yet. Let us not have any further interjections. Let us carry on with this debate as fast as we can.

You see, they are already anticipating, Sir, the tragic comedy of the big double cross.

Order. If the Member for Queenstown talks in that vein, then I cannot really blame the Government Benches for interjecting. If he addresses his remarks to the Chair and proceeds with his speech. I think it will be all right.

I beg your pardon, Sir. My last remark was a repartee to what they had earlier on said. Sir, the evidence of this loss of confidence in the P.A.P. Government can easily be seen all over Singapore and even in the Federation and the Borneo territories where the name of the P.A.P. is always mentioned together with epithets that are only used in abusive language. If you will remember the National Day celebrations of the past three years, Sir. Contrast the 1960 and 196! National Day celebrations with the National Day celebrations this year. The P.A.P., this year, fearing that the loss of support and depletion in their rank and file would allow the P.A.P. contingent to be totally eclipsed by the Barisan Sosialis contingent if the political Parties were allowed to participate as in previous years, imposed all sorts of restrictions on us. Banners and slogans were not allowed, and contingents from the political Parties were restricted to 60 men per Member of the Legislative Assembly. Calculated on this basis, Sir, the Workers' Party would be allowed to have a team of only 60 in the march past: the United People's Party would be allowed to have 60 times 3 = 180: and the Barisan Sosialis would be allowed 60 times 13 - An hon. Member: How many is that?

780, Sir. An hon. Member: He has written it down there!

Of course, it would give the P.A.P. a chance to put up a larger crowd of 26 times 60, which would be 1,560, exactly double ours. But in spite of all this, unfortunately for the P.A.P. they could not put up a show of strength. The P.A.P. tried their utmost, Sir, to put up a show of strength. Work Brigade boys were given double pay to attend. Certain workers were induced to attend by a special allowance of $1.50 per head. All sorts of inducements were also offered. Sir, all these things are known to everybody. Why should they try to hide? In spite of all this, Sir, in spite of their trying to buy people to attend, the P.A.P. could not muster more than a handful, a mere handful of 300. It was no show of strength. It was a pathetic spectacle of the loss of confidence in the P.A.P. and a clear demonstration of general discontent against the P.A.P. The workers who were scheduled to hold their own National Day celebrations had all sorts of restrictions placed in their way and they were compelled to cancel a meeting to celebrate National Day. It was indeed, Sir, a city divided. And it was this "City Divided" - which was headlined in the Sunday Mail - that had caused the P.A.P. to get into such fits that they had to threaten to stop the circulation of this Sunday paper in Singapore. And now we understand that the editor of that paper has been transferred to another department in order to placate the wrath of the P.A.P. Ministers. Consider again, Sir, the May Day rally of the P.A.P.-sponsored unions in the Happy World Stadium and the rally of the independent unions in the Jalan Besar Stadium. It was described in our Plebeian as a battle of rallies. We had a series of pictures to show the people who attended the two rallies. On the one hand, there were 70,000 to 80.000 who braved the heavy rains in order to show their solidarity against the P.A.P. On the other hand, you had this humbug of a rally in the Happy World Stadium which started with about 6,000, but when the time came for the P.A.P. "adviser" to speak, the crowd had dwindled down to only a few hundred.

You had a Gallup poll taken there?

Sir, all these are undeniable facts and I see that the Ministers dare not even deny what I say. Because these facts can all be proved, Sir, with pictures which tell stories that nobody can deny.

That is right. We already did so yesterday.

Of course, the P.A.P. leaders, knowing full well how unpopular they have become, dare not hold rallies of their own to meet the people. The people used to flock by the thousands to listen to them -

They will flock again.

- not so very long ago. The P.A.P. were invited to a rally in Anson, Sir. They dared not turn up. They were afraid of the people.

Come off it!

They just dare not. None of them turned up, Sir. They were afraid that they would be booed.

You mean you were scared of their booing us?

Nowadays, Sir, if the P.A.P. Ministers ever think of holding a rally, they will first make sure that they have some sort of entertainment or show on before they step on to the stage, at least hoping that the people might turn up to see the show and incidentally listen to them at the same tune. That was what happened in Malaysia Week. They had to put on a huge show hoping to attract a crowd to listen to the Prime Minister. But in spite of all that, it was a poor effort. The thousands never turned up. They cannot deny it. All this is due. I believe, to a lack of confidence in the Government. Even in the recent University forum, Sir, I understand that lorry loads of Work Brigade boys were transported there as cheer boys for our Prime Minister.

Come off it!

I do not know. He can deny it later on and we will see what he has to say. The Government are very clever at distorting and inventing stories to cover up all their defects. Sir, the Prime Minister himself had said before that if a government were to function properly they must have the masses on their side. I think if he wants me to quote the proper context, I can quote, but those are the operative words. I think he would not deny it. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, I think [Interruption]

Order. I have already told the Member for Queenstown that he should address the Chair. If he does not want to be interrupted, he should address the Chair.

Even the Deputy Prime Minister said that if the P.A.P. want to succeed, they must have the support of the masses. But what has happened today? The P.A.P. do not have the support of the masses, and they have accordingly failed. Sir, the P.A.P. made a series of promises in the general elections, promises which they have now clean forgotten. They promised to release the detainees, for example. But the detainees are still detained. They are six years under detention, Sir.

Just think of that!

And even without the courtesy of a trial! And to think that our Prime Minister spoke so strongly, Sir,- An hon. Member: Your Secretary-General was released.

- on this particular point. I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister and the Ministers that go along with him really have any feelings. Are they completely devoid of humanitarian principles? Has the Prime Minister forgotten those brave and inspiring words - words which inspired me, Sir - uttered in this House not so very long ago? He said that if any government wanted to put up the slightest pretence of democracy, then all detainees must be released, or if not released, at least be taken to a court for trial. He said that he would never abandon his colleagues even if they should work against him.

That is right. That is why we let out Lim Ching Siong.

But what has happened? The detainees are still in St. John's Island.

Those are not our colleagues.

Order. I think the Prime Minister is entitled to elucidate if he is addressed in that manner.

Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

I do not believe that the Member for Queenstown - it is not really his fault - is capable of this subtle blurring of the lines. Never were the detainees an issue. In fact, we made it quite clear by stating that only those who were closely connected with the P.A.P. would be released and nothing more. We owed no obligation to the others who were against us and who fought us in 1957.

I have no wish to prolong this argument on a small episode. But I can tell you this. The Prime Minister gave a categorical assurance to Woodhull that he would release the prisoners within six months.

On a point of elucidation. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Sir, I missed Mr Woodhull recently at the University of Singapore. I met him only the other evening and invited him to a drink but he was so very busy that he was unable to accept my invitation. This is one of those malicious lies that are being spread. By the very fact that we demanded the release of Messrs. Woodhull, Lim Ching Siong, Devan Nair, Fong Swee Suan, James Puthucheary, Chan Chiaw Thor and the rest, we indicated that we were not in a position to ensure the release of every one on the assumption of power, for the power was not in our hands. Mr Woodhull has publicly stated that I promised him ten times. I indicated to him that the Prison records show that I visited the Prison only twice before he was released. I have since had no reply from him.

The Prime Minister indicated to us in this House that he would never put his hands into the dirty gloves of the Lim Yew Hock Government. What is he doing - The Prime Minister rose - Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Prime Minister.

Sir, that is another inaccuracy. I never indicated it in this House. I indicated it at the Hokkien Huay Kuan at a Press conference.

Then why is he denying? Does it make a difference whether he said it in this House or outside this House? But did he not say those things? That is all we want -

Order. I think, for the sake of the Official Report, there must be some sort of accuracy in this House, even though it might be trivial in the eyes of the Member.

Sir, all these are promises which the Prime Minister has clean forgotten. For example, he also promised the unification of the trade union movement. But there is no unification of the trade union movement today. In fact, so far as we know, every attempt is being made to further divide the trade union movement.

You broke it up.

Then, of course, again, Sir, there were those promises which the Prime Minister made to the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board. He told them that he would see to it that their living standard, their wages and everything would be raised the moment he came to power. What has happened today?

On a point of clarification. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

I do not remember at any time the Member for Queenstown being present at any meeting of the Singapore Harbour Board workers. My only association with the Member for Queenstown was in the Chinese Printing Workers' Union. I was the legal, adviser and he was the medical adviser. And from time to time we used to meet. He has got it all confused.

Sir, the Prime Minister tries - to An hon. Member: Twist and turn.

Yes, twist and turn. But he has not denied what I have said. Sir, we learn a lot of things not through direct experience. We have to learn through the experience of others. I am sure, Sir, that nobody will say that he knows everything through direct experience. He has got to learn it from books. Books tell you the experience of other people. Surely you must learn that, Mr Prime Minister -

Order. The Member for Queenstown is forgetting that he is in the Assembly. He is completely wrong in addressing the Prime Minister directly. He must address the Chair. It seems to me that we are now debating the Prime Minister and not the motion of no confidence in the Government which is before us.

I will endeavour to prove, Sir, that it is the triumvirate that is actually running the government, and the whole of the P.A.P. Government actually rests on those three people. An hon. Member: The Three Musketeers!

I do not know whether they call them the Three Musketeers or the triumvirate. It makes no difference, Sir. But if any one of those three should fall, the whole P.A.P. will fall.

That is what you think.

The other- [Interruption]

Order. There is a Backbencher of the Government who seems to be very persistent in his interjections. I do not propose to mention him yet. But I think he knows that I have watched him, and I ask him to stop interjecting.

Talking of promises, Sir, I must mention one more thing. There is the shocking remark by the Prime Minister in the Singapore University Forum about Singapore citizens not born in Singapore. He now thinks that the loyalty of the Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore is worth only one dollar - just two packets of cigarettes- The Prime Minister rose -

Point of elucidation?

Point of elucidation, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh refused to give way.

Order. If an hon. Member makes a direct reference to another hon. Member of this House - which the other hon. Member thinks is a misrepresentation or an untruth - and if the Member who is attacked wishes to rise on a point of elucidation, I think the Member who speaks ought to sit down. That is courtesy not only to the Member attacked, but also to the Chamber itself.

I have given up smoking for some five years, Sir, I do not even know what the price of a packet of cigarettes is, to begin with. In my remarks to the University of Singapore - which is all on the tape, Mr Speaker, Sir, and it can be checked - what I pointed out was the curious position in Singapore where, as a result of the legislation of the previous Government, a whole host of persons have been granted citizenship on the basis of a quantitative and not qualitative test, with the result that those born and bred here - 280,000 of them - have been outnumbered by those not born here - 340,000 of them. And I said this in answer to a question why it was necessary to pose alternatives to the people. I indicated then that the process of just registering a man for one dollar does not ensure that he is as loyal as his oath. It is a fair remark which I will make and repeat anywhere - which any honest man knows to be true. I did not make any disparaging remarks about the price of two packets of cigarettes being the price of a citizen because obviously there must be quite a number of the 340,000 who will satisfy any qualitative test. Quite a number of them are sitting with me in this House on my side.

Order. I think the Prime Minister has made his point.

That merely proves my point, Sir, that he did say that loyalty to Singapore was worth only one dollar. And yet the Prime Minister -

Order. I think the Member for Queenstown must not misinterpret what has been said. I think the Prime Minister indicated quite clearly that a dollar is the cost of a certificate of citizenship, which is quite a different thing.

No, Sir. He did say those things about the Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore, and yet he came to power with the support of these very same non-local born citizens.

On a point of elucidation. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The vote was secret, and nobody knew who voted how. There was no disparity between the Singapore born and the non-Singapore born citizens at the last election. I think the suggestion by the Member for Queenstown that the non-local born citizens supported us and the local born citizens did not support us is completely untenable, and in any case -

Order. The Prime Minister has made his point. He cannot make a speech.

Just one last sentence. Sir, about this incident. Let him remember the verdict of the people. The Prime Minister himself has said that the verdict of the people is a terrible thing and that it will be very terrible to those who do not keep faith -

Like the Barisan.

-with the people. The P.A.P. Ministers themselves know that they are no more what they were, or what they used to be. Hence their desperate attempt to woo the civil service with the restoration of pay cuts and their belated attempt to introduce equal pay for women. Now, Sir, we see this comedy of trying to placate the teachers on their grouse about the six-day week, hoping thereby to gain or to regain possibly-

Order. I wonder whether the report of the Commission of Inquiry on that particular point has been published. If it has not been published, the Member should not refer to that subject.

I will leave it out, Sir. Anyway, the P.A.P. today have travelled very far away from the people, so much so that they have to place open reliance on troops in order that they may have an opportunity to repress the people. The Prime Minister has boasted, for example, that he has obtained money from the United Kingdom in order to have more battalions stationed in Singapore-

I am rising on a point of elucidation, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is very important.

Point of elucidation. Will the Member give way? Dr Lee Siew Choh indicated dissent.

The Member will not give way.

I think the Prime Minister has ample time to reply, Sir.

Order. It is not a question of the Prime Minister having ample time. As I have indicated, if a direct attack is being made on a Member and that Member thinks that that attack is untrue, then he should be given a chance of elucidating. But I am watching it.

Sir, the Prime Minister claims that he is a great anti-colonialist. But he is a curious type of anti-colonialist who fights colonialism with money and troops from the colonial power. In addition, Sir, I saw in the papers recently the Prime Minister was giving indirect encouragement to the troops in the Federation to take over should the Socialist Front come to power in the Federation. Sir, this Fascist and intimidatory talk of the Prime Minister of meeting force with force in Singapore, leaves no room for doubt as to his true nature. There is now, Sir, no more faith in the Lee Kuan Yew Government. The Prime Minister talks contemptuously of the one man one vote system, a system which brought him to power. Let me quote, Sir, from his speech to civil servants as reported in the Straits Times of the 9th of July, 1962. It is on page 8, column 6: `The Prime Minister said: "The tragedy about the one-man one-vote system is that it is often easier to raise the bid not knowing or, even worse, knowing full well that you will never be able to fulfil your promises, and the higher bidder usually wins. In all new countries, the electorate is inexperienced, unsophisticated - It will vote for the person who says, `I promise you the moon, the sun and the stars'."'. Does he still believe in the wisdom of the people? Sir, if there is any tragedy in the one-man one-vote system in Singapore, it is that the people have unwittingly voted in a man who has so little respect for the opinions of the common man. The Prime Minister is already killing parliamentary democracy, and on the day this sham, dishonest referendum is held-

That day your lies may-

- democracy in Singapore will officially be pronounced dead- An hon. Member: Officially?

Because on that day, freedom will have been taken away from the people of Singapore. There is no free expression of views in Singapore today, Sir. There is even this clamp down of news from the Opposition Parties and on other political Parties outside who try to express opposition to the Government's Fascist measures. Unionists, journalists and University students have all come out openly to protest against the undemocratic measures of the Government that further and further limit individual freedom. I will not enlarge on that, Sir. Suffice it to say that this alone goes to prove that it is not the so-called Communists that are killing democracy, but these Fascists masquerading as democrats who are killing parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Sir, let us now try and find out the reason why the selfish P.A.P. Ministers have got themselves into such a sorry plight. They would like to ascribe all this to the Communist bogey, but that is not true. Why then are the people against the P.A.P. Government today? I have already indicated, Sir, that it is the P.A.P. that have destroyed the P.A.P. How, you may ask? Sir, the fact is the P.A.P. leaders are the greatest political bluffers and opportunists in Singapore history and, as such, they are opportunists of the first order, completely without scruples and without principles of decency and fair play. I do not wish to open up old scores, Sir, but there are strong rumours current in town that the P.A.P. leaders are not completely free from political guilt in the dirty political purge of 1956, although such political dirty work was carried out entirely by the reactionary Lim Yew Hock Government. You see, Sir, our Ministers have posed as Leftists for a long time and have managed to pose as Leftists because the genuine Left-wing leaders have been prevented from performing their legitimate role as a result of political repression. It is because they had posed so successfully and well as the Left that they were voted into office and power in 1959. However, it is much easier to pose as the Left than to be Left, and then when they were exposed as humbugs and shams, they began to fight their own comrades and colleagues in order to keep up the pretence and humbug and in order to keep themselves in office. I say, Sir, these are the ruthless opportunists who tenaciously hold on to the reins of government in spite of the fact that they have been completely discredited and in spite of the fact that they are no more supported by the people. We realise they always have their plausible set of rationalisations and justifications for their opportunistic act of perfidy to the people of Singapore. Sir, these are the so-called social democrats who, because if their numerous somersault distortions and disreputable public utterances, have become a discredit to true democrats. They say, Sir, that they love the beautiful system of parliamentary democracy. But the Prime Minister has just come out openly to say that the one man one vote system is a tragedy in the context of Singapore. They say they are democrats, but they claim that democracy can only be saved by dishonest, undemocratic and dictatorial methods. They say they cherish the freedom of the Press, but the Press is subjected to such tight control that there is already one newspaper, the Min Pao, that has been compelled to suspend publication indefinitely. As you know, Sir, newspaper space for Opposition Members on whatever they say in this House has been cut down to less than one-third; two-thirds of newspaper space must be reserved for Government Benches. For example, Sir, yesterday when the Member for Thomson moved his motion and later on when the Minister for Home Affairs replied, one full page was given to the speech by the Minister for Home Affairs, and only a scraggy couple of columns - less than a couple of columns - I do not think it could even be a column, in some corner, Sir, for the Member for Thomson. This is a disgraceful method of pressure on the Press. They say they are not Fascists and that they allow people to freely express their views and opinions. Yet when a group of trade unions got together to hold a convention in connexion with the referendum, the unionists were prohibited from holding the meeting and from expressing their views. More recently, they also barred the Council of Joint Action from conducting its lawful and constitutional campaign or protest against the dishonesty and dictatorship of the P.A.P. by holding rallies and conventions in order that its views on the merger issue and on the referendum might be communicated to the people. They say they allow the people of Singapore the final say on the future of Singapore and on the question of merger. But in the forthcoming referendum, the people will not be allowed to say 'no' to the alternatives offered to them. They are only P.A.P. alternatives foisted on the people-

Order. I must remind the hon. Member that those alternatives have been approved by this Assembly. Therefore, there is a vote of the Assembly approving the alternatives and there cannot be any reflection on any vote of the Assembly no matter how much the Member might dislike it.

That is one of the defects, Sir, -

That you cannot vote it.

Just because they have been approved by the majority - Some hon. Members: So what?

We are not even allowed to criticise-

Order. I thought the Member for Queenstown was a champion of parliamentary democracy. The Speaker is here to see that parliamentary democracy, at least in this Chamber, is upheld and one of the rules is that no vote of the Assembly can be reflected upon by any Member.

I will observe your guidance, Sir. An hon. Member: Rule.

Anyway, the P.A.P. Ministers call themselves socialists at one time. Nowadays, they dare not use the word "socialist" any more. They call themselves nationalists. But by their very actions, they have shown themselves neither to be socialists nor nationalists- An hon. Member: Communists.

But they have shown themselves to be national socialists-

We heard that yesterday, you know.

- national socialists of the Hitler type. They do not like to hear it because they are the exact replica today in Singapore of the Nazis in Germany. Sir, I want to emphasise, and I take it that it is no exaggeration so to say, that all along public confidence in the present P.A.P. Government has hinged on the public standing of three individuals. I have already indicated to you. They are the Prime Minister as a lawyer, the Minister for Finance as an economist and administrator, and the Minister for Culture as a Goebbels propagandist, and all three of them have been thoroughly discredited. These three, Sir, the triumvirate of the P.A.P., have now decided to wear a cross-

Cross? They are not Christians.

They have now turned themselves into anti-Communist crusaders a la McCarthy. An hon. Member: Oh, alamak!

a la McCarthy. Their historical mission, so they keep repeating, is exactly this.

You need baggy trousers and a top hat!

Not with a marble skull! They want to fight the supposed Communist enemies and the supposed Communist sympathisers to the finish. And towards this end they have plotted and slept with Machiavelli, strained every sinew, mobilised all available forces whatever they may be, both from their side as well as this side of the House, and used all the most dictatorial and Fascist means and methods. The people of Singapore have seen the proponents of this negative philosophy of anti-Communism, and have seen how the P.A.P. have racked their evil genius for excuses and distortions in order to cling on to power. As I have indicated earlier, Sir, they have, and they know this full well, lost the support of the people. The rank and file of the P.A.P. have been so depleted that the P.A.P. today is no more than an empty shell. And they have no organisation and hardly any cadres to speak of. They know full well that they have no more moral authority to carry on as a Government. Yet these self-same men who hold power have taken upon themselves to tell the people of Singapore what their constitutional future should be. Simply because the P.A.P. leaders say, with their usual arrogance, that they know what is best for the people of Singapore. As long as the P.A.P. leaders say that, then the P.A.P. maintain that it is correct and that the future of the people of Singapore must be good. They imagine only the P.A.P. know what is best for the people of Singapore! And it is because of that, I suppose, that they thrust this sham referendum on the people. And it may be because of that that they have decided on the questions for the people. Without any reflection on this House, Sir, those were the questions that were acceptable only to the P.A.P., not to the people of Singapore. Sir, I would like to ask how crooked our Singapore politicians can become.

That is you.

I am surprised at the Deputy Prime Minister interjecting, Sir, I would like to ask him whether he was elected by the people of Singapore in Rochore or whether he was elected in Kuala Kangsar. An hon. Member: In Rochore or Rochore Canal?

Taiping.

I am not sure whether it was Rochore or Rochore Canal, Sir. Possibly it might-

Order. Let us try and stop being abusive. A repartee is quite all right if it does not go over the border.

I would urge our Ministers opposite to remember that they were elected by the people of Singapore and I would urge them always to place the interests of the people of Singapore above everything else. They say now that they do not want to vacate their cushy jobs and their seats of power because they believe they are the chosen people, destined to fulfil their so-called historical mission of merger and Malaysia. And if their ways happen to be undemocratic - so the Minister for Finance said - these undemocratic and drastic ways are necessary because of the Communists! They can become Fascists. They can be most undemocratic and most dishonest because of the Communists! Can we trust such people to look after the interests of the people of Singapore? Sir, we sincerely believe that Singapore can no longer allow this dangerous political trend to continue. Otherwise from a sophisticated Singapore version of Syngman Rhee, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Chiang Kai-shek, we might get a more noxious variation of these abhorrent dictators. We do not want that to happen. We have a duty to stop that from happening. And I urge all representatives in this House to see that this does not happen. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis say that it is suicidal to leave the future and destiny of our people in the hands of the leaders of this minority Government. No one could have trust and confidence in such leaders of this minority Government any longer. As a minority Government that refuse to budge from their cushy seats of power after they have lost the support of the people, the P.A.P. Government today cannot be expected to have any consideration for political principles and for the normal standards of decency and fair play. It will be the people of Singapore who will suffer at the hands of this minority Government if such a dictatorial minority Government is allowed to continue in office. Sir, in the current series of debates in this House, the people of Singapore have been treated to a fantastic exhibition of twists and turns of the P.A.P. leaders. It was a beautiful exhibition of somersaults, malicious distortions and malicious falsehoods on the part of the P.A.P. There were dishonest attempts to maliciously distort the stand of the Opposition on merger.

Of the Barisan Sosialis, not the Opposition.

We saw how a general Referendum Bill had been changed into a specific Referendum Bill almost overnight. And now this so-called general Referendum Bill will even have to be scrapped immediately after the dirty work has been done. There were also dishonest attempts to make political capital out of our original intention of not wanting to reveal the contents of the exchange of letters between our Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, and the Tunku. Now, the P.A.P. have to eat their own words and their own mischievous distortions. They want the people to believe that today, although their own comrades have broken away from them in large numbers, the P.A.P. Ministers are still gaining new admirers and supporters with each passing day. This, of course, is a fond hope which they themselves know will never be realised. Many are surprised at the thickness of the skin of the P.A.P. Ministers. I am not surprised, Sir, this is the only way left for them - i.e. to have a thick skin. [Interruption] I am a medical man - I should know, Sir, how thick their skin is.

You have cow-hide!

After defeats in two by-elections, if they had any sense of decency, they would have considered it highly improper and immoral, not to have gone hack to the people for a fresh mandate.

Sir, on a point of elucidation.

He can have plenty of opportunities later. But the P.A.P. leaders appear, as you will gather from the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, to be of a different kettle of fish.

Ikan bills!

They still talk of the mandate they received from the people three years ago in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly explained to the House that the P.A.P. never had a mandate on merger in the 1959 general elections. Today the P.A.P. can no longer claim to have any right, constitutionally and morally, to carry on as a Government. Not only are they a minority Government but in each of the constituencies of the Ministers and the other P.A.P. Assemblymen, it will be found that there is no more support for the P.A.P. There are no more safe seats today for the P.A.P. Ministers. The chances are that should the Ministers go back to their respective constituencies in a general election, most of them will lose their deposits. A Gallup poll in Tanjong Pagar should tell the Prime Minister what chances he will have if he should dare go back to Tanjong Pagar. My guess is that the Prime Minister will lose his deposit. So we see that though the P.A.P. had the support of the majority of the people in 1959, they no longer have that support today. The P.A.P. bank their precarious existence only on the simple calculation that the U.M.N.O. and the S.P.A. cannot just as yet dispense with the P.A.P. Government. The S.P.A. in all their somersaults want to give the P.A.P. all necessary support at the present moment in order that they may capitalise on the unstable status quo. At the same time, all of us realise that the Opposition Parties are divided both ideologically and in our immediate objectives.

That is right.

And it does look as if there is as yet no common issue that can unite the Opposition Parties to bring the P.A.P. Government down. The only unfortunate thing about this P.A.P. calculation is that they cannot any longer put up a pretence of being non-Communists. If the P.A.P. really adopted an independent line as was proclaimed by the Ministers in the past, then it would be difficult to see how the P.A.P. should accept the prop of the Right-wing reactionaries today, forces which the Prime Minister used to deride as inert and ineffective two years ago. I would like, Sir, to quote a small paragraph here of what the Prime Minister himself said on the 12th September, 1957. May I refer you, Sir, to col. 2604? I do not wish to quote too big a paragraph. Sir - he was talking about the fight to the Left, to the Right, and how he was trying to keep a tightrope balance right through. He said: (it is the last sentence of the second paragraph)- `But in this fight we shall not make the mistake of allying ourselves with so-called anti-Communist forces which are often cloaks to hide reactionary elements ranging from colonial vested interests to enemies of democracy. Brave, inspiring words, Sir, I have informed the Prime Minister before that I admired the way he was going about his political work. And I admired him very much at that time, Sir, It is so unfortunate that he has changed so completely today. Today the P.A.P. will have to rely on any force, because they are no longer thinking of the people: they are thinking only of themselves. The cards are all on the table - face upwards. We know the U.M.N.O. will support any government that helps to further the realisation of the Malaysia plan. But as regards the S.P.A., all Singapore know how they somersault, and their policies are beyond comprehension. The Member for Cairnhill said that the blank paper clause is undemocratic and dishonest, and he voted against the clause in Select Committee, Sir.

Order. It seems to me now that we are having a debate on the S.P.A. There is a motion of no confidence in the Government. I do not think we can have a debate on the S.P.A.

We are not the Government yet!

I bring in the S.P.A., Sir, only in relation to the support that they can give to the P.A.P.

Order, that, of course, is quite legitimate. But when the hon. Member goes further and talks about a somersault. I do not know whether he means somersaulting across the Floor of this Chamber.

I want to say only this, Sir. Although the S.P.A. keep on saying that the P.A.P. is dead, every time the P.A.P. ghost moves, the Member for Cairnhill gets up to salute the ghost. Everybody in town knows that it is the S.P.A. support for the P.A.P. that keeps the P.A.P. alive today. The Prime Minister himself will have to admit that. That is why he dare not even attack the S.P.A. Members nowadays. The P.A.P. are completely mum. There is a blackout. To the P.A.P., the S.P.A. are now no more effete and ineffective! They are now the Grand Alliance! I would suggest to the S.P.A. - especially the S.P.A., Sir, since the U.M.N.O. have their interest bound up with the Malaysia plan - that if they have the interest of the people at heart, now is the time for them to show it, by knocking out this minority P.A.P. Government which is at its last gasp. They should not allow a dishonest Government to continue to perpetrate a fraud on the people of Singapore, because never before in history has there been such a minority Government that clings on to power so desperately without constitutional and moral justification. The P.A.P. Government is not loyal and sincere to the true wishes and aspirations of the people of Singapore, because, at the present moment, the P.A.P. leaders are only thinking of their own interests. The future of Singapore is at the crossroads. The P.A.P. have committed the future of our people to forces outside Singapore, without our consent, and against the collective will of the people. This is the P.A.P. sell-out. One extra day of the P.A.P.'s existence and P.A.P. misrule will mean one extra day of unhappiness for the people of Singapore. As the P.A.P. no longer have a majority in the House, it is our duty as Parliamentarians and representatives of the people of Singapore to take the necessary stand and action to compel the minority Government to go back to the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that there is no other alternative before the country than to compel this discredited and dishonest minority Government to resign.

You should have resigned yourself!

To summarise, the P.A.P. today have, because of their selfish interests, deviated from their original stand of democratic non-Communist socialism. They are now dishonest and dictatorial and have lost the support of the masses. In the words of the Prime Minister himself, the P.A.P. have destroyed the P.A.P. The Five-Year Plan, which is also known as "The Tasks Ahead", represents the mandate that was given to the P.A.P. in the 1959 general elections. All those promises in the Five-Year Plan "The Tasks Ahead" - have been forgotten, and all because of what? It is because the Prime Minister thinks that by playing about with merger, he could distract the people's attention from the promises which he gave to the people of Singapore. At the present moment, Sir, the Government is not a Government run by the elected representatives of the people. It is a Government which is self-running. The civil servants run the Government, Sir, It makes no difference whether the P.A.P. Government is there or not. They have lost already all justification to remain as a Government. There is no Government in Singapore today truly run by the elected leaders of the people. The Prime Minister had said a few years ago that if we want to run a democracy and a good government, we must have the people on our side. Today we cannot allow the Government that has already lost the support of the masses to pretend that it still is a respected elected government. We cannot also allow the vicious communal line of the P.A.P. propaganda, under the cloak of nationalism in the controversy of the merger issue, to continue. This is a very dangerous drift which the P.A.P. communalists must stop. One of the ways of stopping this is to stop them as a Government because today they have all the facilities of propaganda in their hands. They are the people who can stir up communal feelings. I will not go much further, Sir, except to say that we must hold a general election so that a new government may be formed that can really have a new mandate to continue our constitutional struggle ahead. An hon. Member: S.P.A. Alliance!

Let us truly put the happiness and the national interests of the people above sectional and party interests. Let us do our duty to the people and get rid of this lousy, dishonest, untrustworthy and dictatorial Government. Before closing, Sir, let me quote one small paragraph of what the Deputy Prime Minister himself said last year. May I refer you, Sir, to Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 13 of 22nd February, 1961, in column 1029. It is somewhere in the middle, Sir, I think it is a very good quotation because the Deputy Prime Minister had always given us indication before that if the P.A.P. Government had no support from the people, he would not like the Government to carry on. I am sure he will remember the time when he said, "I would rather stop now than having stones thrown at me."

Let us hear the quote.

"Let us hear the quote?" I will quote. He was talking on the motion on Algeria. In column 1029, the Deputy Prime Minister said, in the last paragraph - it is a very interesting paragraph, Sir, I think it deserves mention, especially now that the Deputy Prime Minister is here: `During the period of the Rendel Constitution in 1956, the first Merdeka talks were held. Mr David Marshall, then Chief Minister, led an all-Parts delegation to London. Our representatives at those talks were the Secretary-General of the Party, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Lim Ching Siong and Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Let me remind the Member for Cairnhill that nothing came out of those constitutional talks under the leadership of David Marshall. In 1957, following the resignation and collapse of David Marshall, Mr Lim Yew Hock, now Member for Cairnhill, became Chief Minister, and he in turn led a second round of talks in London.' Now, these are the interesting words, Sir. He said: `However, let us be quite honest-' I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will be honest this time - `about how the trend of those talks was carried out; who provided the mass base, the mass support, so that the 1957 talks could be successful, and so that a new Constitution could be drafted out which would give complete internal self-government to Singapore.' Now in Singapore the mass base is no more supporting the P.A.P.

That is not my quotation, is it?

You see, the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten the words that he said. It is only one year ago. How quickly people change! Their memories are very short. May I carry on, Sir? `It is not the achievements of those - meaning the Member for Cairnhill and his colleagues - who were in the Government at that time. It was an achievement of the people of Singapore, of the masses -'

Yes.

Beautiful! `---who had confidence in the P.A.P. that confidence had been very ably demonstrated in the City Council election and in the general elections in 1959. Sir, the P.A.P. cannot claim that by itself it will lead Singapore to complete independence unless it is also supported by the masses.' Now today, Sir, the P.A.P. have not got the support of the masses. They dare not even hold a rally to meet the masses.

That is what you say.

But the most significant few lines which I want to quote today, Sir, is this. It is somewhere in the middle. He said: `However, the Constitution has promised [and I hope he will not eat his words] that in 1963, there will be a review of the Constitution, and we are determined to see that that clause is honoured.' "determined to see that that clause is honoured"!

Order. I do not know how the hon. Member for Queenstown gets those inflexions. I cannot see them in the Hansard. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister never said those words in that tone of voice.

You see, Sir, our Deputy Prime Minister said those words, and he said that he would he determined to see that that clause is honoured. which means that in 1963, there will be a review of the Constitution.

Earlier.

See how they have twisted, see how they have turned! I only wish, Sir, that the Deputy Prime Minister could really honour truth and honour promises. I said before, Sir, that I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister, because of his scientific training, would at least see truth as truth should be seen and not distorted versions of things. But I see now that he is completely infected-

By whom?

- and that he has already lost all sense of decency and fair play.

He has been playing about with Barisan rabbits.

Let all those with ivory skulls remember it.

He has got the thickest of them all! [Laughter] Dr Lee Siew Choh rose and remained slient. [Laughter]

Order. I take it that the Member for Queenstown has completed on that note.

No.

Not yet. Dr Lee.

Whenever we say something which hurts them, they try and laugh it off and make light of it [Laughter].

Order. I do not know whether the Member has anything further to say.

Except when I reply.

That is a good thought! Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today is Friday the 13th, and the Barisan Sosialis also number 13. Today. Sir, is Friday the 13th and a great political event is unfolding itself in this very Chamber. Sir, the S.P.A./U.M.N.O Alliance express no confidence in the Government.

Hooray!

Sir, I am indeed thrilled by the enthusiastic support given to me by the Member for Anson. His "Hooray" sounds like sweet music to my ears. Sir, as I said, the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance express no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis -

Alamak!

- thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore. Sir, my colleague has been rather taken aback by my naming the Barisan Sosialis. I think he said "alamak mati"? [Laughter]. Just now the Member for Queenstown said a la McCarthy, but may I say "alamak mati"? [Laughter]. Sir, I now propose to move an amendment to this motion, but I would like first to seek your guidance as to whether or not my amendment is in order. *Amendment handed in, *The amendment reads as follows:- "At end, to add: 'in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis thus endangering the wellbeing of the people of Singapore'."

The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

On a point ot clarification, Sir, I was wondering whether the Member for Cairnhill could have copies of the amendment distributed to us?

Are extra copies available?

Later on, Sir. [Interruption]

I think the Member has already indicated his amendment.

The cat is now out of the bag! 4.31 p.m. Copies of amendment handed in to Clerk at the Table and distributed to hon. Members.

I received enthusiastic support from the Member for Anson before he heard me out, but after I said that I had tried to nail the crime of the Government in that it has endangered the well-being of the people of Singapore by not discharging its sacred duty, there was some silence. I trust, Sir, that the Member for Anson, who is a great fighter against these Communist pests, will fight shoulder to shoulder with me in ridding Singapore of the menace of Communist subversion. Communist penetration into organisations like the Barisan Sosialis in damaging the well-being of the people of Singapore. The leader of the Barisan said he could not find common cause. In fact, he appealed to this House, "Let us sink party differences and serve the interests of the people of Singapore." I call on them, "Let us serve the interests of the people of Singapore, sink all party differences. Let us show that at least we have one common cause and that is to protect the interests of Singapore from Communist subversion." That is the common cause, if the Barisan Sosialis want a common cause. The Member for Queenstown, in moving his motion, gave a very long account of what his Party saw wrong in the P.A.P. All I can say here at this time is this: The pot is calling the kettle black. They were on that side of the House less than a year ago and they were the people who, together with the remnants of the P.A.P., perpetrate - the crimes that he now - says the P.A.P. did. The Barisan Sosialis are just as guilty, If they say the P.A.P is guilty, of what they have done to the people of Singapore. Sir, let us examine the charge sheet of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis when he makes his indictment of the P.A.P. I have a few listed here and what I have, read like this: Three years of P.A.P. misrule will be recorded in history. Yes. The Barisan Sosialis were there, so the misrule includes the Barisan Sosialis arrogance. Sir, we who have been in the Opposition ever since there were 43 Members in the P.A.P. did touch on this arrogance of the P.A.P. They kept on crowing, and crowing like a cock every day, but like the cock their throats may be slit in due course. Sir, arrogance they enjoyed. The Barisan Sosialis, when they were on the other side of the House, also indulged in arrogance against the Opposition, and we had been bearing the brunt of it for three years. We got it bad, but we did not feel hurt, because, after all, Sir, arrogance has been practised by the P.A.P. against their opponents. It is aimed at their political opponents. It is not a crime that has damaged the well-being of the people of Singapore. We can take it. Arrogance was indulged in by a number of Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Back-benchers, although the P.A.P. claim that they have a Ministry of Culture. Arrogance is a sort of personal vice that can only be found in a person who lacks culture. Sir, when I was a little boy in school. I was attracted by one short verse. I think it was by Longfellow, and it reads like this: "He who is down need fear no fall, He who is low no pride; He who is humble ever shall Have God to be his guide," It is because of the arrogance of the P.A.P. that even the gods frowned on them and showed their displeasure by causing a water shortage in Singapore. [Laughter] Sir, the Government Front-benches do not believe in God, but if I remember rightly, it was the Prime Minister who said, "Only God can save us." An hon. Member: He never said that.

A water shortage that was never heard of in the history of Singapore happened at the time when the P.A.P. was the Government. We have not got out of the threat of a water shortage yet. Maybe the gods have been a bit kinder today because the P.A.P. saw the error of their ways and have got rid of their Communist sleeping partners. May the gods be a bit kinder to them when they do discharge their sacred duty. Sir, let us go back to the charge sheet of the Barisan Sosialis. Dishonesty - both are dishonest. Party considerations above national interests - both come from the same school and practise the same things. Sell-out of the interests of Singapore. Now, what is this sell-out? A sell-out of the interests of Singapore by doing their best to achieve merger to serve the interests of Singapore; or a sell-out of the interests of Singapore by the Barisan Sosialis to the Communist cause. I do not know when the sell-out ends. Sell-out to achieve merger, as the end result, will mean prosperity, happiness and security for the people of Singapore; whereas the sell-out of the Barisan Sosialis to the Communist cause will bring misery, despair and hardship to the people of Singapore. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis said earlier - I think he used the word "destined" twice - that the P.A.P. was destined to have a brilliant future. I do not think the P.A.P. could be destined to have a brilliant future. Its symbol is lightning. It came like a flash: it dies like a flash. If the P.A.P. had wanted to have a brilliant future, they should have consulted the Barisan Sosialis earlier and have a star-

That is right.

- that could be a brilliant star; but this star of the Barisan Sosialis is one of the dangerous stars of the Communist group in the firmament. An hon. Member: A shooting star! [Laughter] Another hon. Member: Tell them their horoscope!

Ah, yes. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis said this - he referred to this, yes, he did - "It was indeed a very ridiculous picture in July last year when the P.A.P. with 39 Members on their side tabled a motion of confidence." What happened at that time? Did not the S.P.A../U.M.N.O. Alliance then say, "We have no confidence in the Government."? What did the Barisan Sosialis do - the 13 bright stars? If then they had meant to pull the Government down, they could have voted with us, but they abstained. Why did they abstain then, but want to do it now? Why did they abstain then when the opportunity was given to them? Was it because they had not received fresh orders yet? Or was it because they were caught unawares and they did not know what to do? If they really had no confidence in the Government and I am sure they had not if one were to believe the lengthy speech of the Member for Queenstown when he recited the crimes of the P.A.P. for the past three years - then why did the 13 bright stars in the Barisan Sosialis abstain? Why did they not vote with us against the Government and express no confidence in it? They did not do it. And now, it seems funny, they have tabled a motion of no confidence. Why? From the long speech of the Member for Queenstown, it is clear that they kept on their fight wanting to wreck referendum and merger every step of the way - from the merger debate in November to the debate on the motion by the Member for Anson for a referendum to be held, through the Second Reading of the National Referendum Bill right up to the Committee Stage and still right up to the Third Reading; and still further they kept on going. During this series of sittings, every day we heard nothing from them but a disclosure of their desire to wreck the merger referendum. Even now their aim in tabling this motion is just to try their best to put a halt to the carrying out of the merger referendum - to call a halt to merger and Malaysia. Are we, as a responsible Opposition, going to be misled by them into creating trouble, into creating chaos for the country? They want a common cause, Sir, I will show them this common cause: vote with us, that the Government has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis and thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore. Vote with us and pull the Government down. A common cause. Nothing from them. Perhaps they will be waiting for further orders when they go out later on. They want a common cause: we have given them a common cause. But we will not have a common cause with them to wreck merger. [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, it is only those who are capable of dishonesty who see dishonesty in almost every move of everybody else. I have shown the Bansan Sosialis a common cause. Let us put the interests of the country first and foremost. Let us forget the interests of our Party. The Barisan Sosialis leader, the Member for Queenstown, has said that the Government will have the support of the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Let the Barisan Sosialis not give their support to the Government in voting on my amendment. Who knows? They gave their support in July last year. That was 21st July, not 13th July last year. They abstained when they had the opportunity then to pull the Government down. They did not. Sir, let us now touch on the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. As usual, he tried to give us his assessment of the security situation up to date. He said that what is happening today follows a similar pattern in 1956 and 1957, and yet he takes no action. Sir, Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burnt. Prime Minister Lee plays zugzwang while Singapore burns. Sir, the people of Singapore cannot afford such a luxury. The threat is genuine. The threat is growing, so says the Prime Minister. And yet he said, "Huh, I have got them in a zugzwang. Huh, they could not move." That is not the way to look after the internal security and economic well-being of the people of Singapore. It is not a game. The way is clear and simple. If I were a medical man and if you had a bad leg, I would advise you to chop it off. So if you have bad Communists and bad Communist-front leaders in the political arena in Singapore, use the guillotine on them. I hope when the 12 o'clock guillotine falls tonight, it will spell the doom of those who are so foolish as to be led by the known communists and Communist-front leaders. Sir, in fact, the Prime Minister laughed at me and said, "Ah, look at them, the foolish Lim Yew Hock Government! I was on the other side planning the game of zugzwang and he got caught." And he said, I am not going to get caught like this poor foolish Lim Yew Hock!" It does not solve the situation, because there were men then who were prepared to work with the Communists to achieve their own political ends. The action I took could be said to be not enough. There were still a number of pockets left untouched, because then I still was a democratic animal. But if I had known that there was going to be that group of P.A.P. leaders who are still in the P.A.P. now, still working with them and planning with them the general elections were a great success for them in 1959 I would not have hesitated. And if I had known then that the Prime Minister was consorting with the person he called "The Plen". I would have sent him to keep Lim Ching Siong company in gaol, so that he could at least have some re-thinking as Devan Nair had, re-thinking to some good purpose. Wise after the event, Sir, but it is all right. So long as one gets wise after the facts are known. As the P.A.P. says, we should get wise after the facts are known. I hope they will be wiser after his debate. Sir, the Prime Minister is still in a stalemate. He does not believe that the only way to check the danger is to withdraw the source of danger. He believes in playing a game of chess, and in trying to sell his idea of his own particular form of game, he has made 12 awful disclosures through Radio Singapore, now enshrined in what he describes as "The Battle for Merger". This book contains many awful disclosures, but what is more relevant to my amendment is that a number of persons have been named as Communists and Communist-front leaders. It has described the Barisan Sosialis as being manipulated and controlled by the Communists. This is evidence produced by the Government. Because of the evidence here, which has not been refuted by the Barisan Sosialis. I have seen fit to table an amendment to name the Barisan Sosialis as one of the organisations that are being manipulated and controlled by subversive forces. I do not know it myself because I am not in the Government, but I am prepared to accept the word of our Prime Minister when he said that the Barisan Sosialis is being controlled and manipulated by the Communists. He even went to the extent of making a few awful, disclosures about the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. If I may seek your indulgence, Sir, I would like to quote from this great masterpiece of the Prime Minister who has seen fit to say that Communist and Communist-front leaders should receive honourable mention in the book and also in broadcasts over Radio Singapore. I believe the only way to give them honourable mention is to put them in Changi, but he believes otherwise. He gives them an honourable place even in a book which is being sold at one dollar. He gives them honourable mention over Radio Singapore. He has one interesting thing to say about the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. I quote from page 95 at the bottom of the last paragraph: `Yet Dr Lee (that is, the Member for Queenstown) in an interview reported in the Guardian on September 22, stated, "I am not a Communist, and, if I became convinced there were Communists in our party I would expose them and let the people decide."' But instead of exposing them, he aided and abetted them by acting as a courier. In other words, he was like a post box for someone from Sarawak. This, Sir, is in direct contradiction of an earlier statement by the Prime Minister in an earlier disclosure. That can be found at page 73, second paragraph: "They used Dr Lee Siew Choh as the front leader of this group. Dr Lee had told Dr Goh and me that he was convinced that so long as the British bases were left untouched, it would be perfectly all right to run a pro-Communist government with Communist support in Singapore." Sir, this has not been denied or challenged by the Member for Queenstown. In fact, he could have taken the Prime Minister to court on this. But he did not. So what is the conclusion to be arrived at by any one, any third party or any disinterested party, that what the Prime Minister said was the truth and nothing but the truth? Sir, so in a simple paragraph, you know the mind of the Member for Queenstown, why he is standing up in this Assembly talking so much and claiming to fight for the interests of the people of Singapore when he admitted chat it would be perfectly all right to run a pro-Communist government with Communist support in Singapore. And yet I heard a few interjections of "Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest!" Sir, I would ask the Member for Queenstown to be honest at least with himself, if not with anybody else. Be honest with himself. What game is he playing in this repeated assault on the Government - repeated for 13 days, today is the 13th day - wanting to pull the Government down when the time for merger and Malaysia-

Will the Member take a long time? I think we will suspend for tea. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m.until 5.30.p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown tried his very best in his speech to get us away from doing our duty in a responsible manner by appealing to our emotions. He said that the Government poked fun at the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance with disparaging and insulting remarks. What he meant to suggest to us was now is the time to take our revenge. Sir, as a responsible Opposition conscious of the heavy burden that now falls upon us, since the Government is now a minority of one, we will not be deterred from even voting with the Government on any issues that are meant for the good of the people of Singapore, on any issues that will mean the extermination of the Communist pest. If we have been insulted in the past three years - the Barisan Sosialis are not free from blame; when they were there, they did the same thing; they are as equally guilty as the P.A.P. - must a responsible Opposition take note of such insults that were heaped upon us? We want to tell the Barisan Sosialis that we can take it and take very much more if in taking it we are guided in the service of the interests of the people of Singapore. So let me tell the leader of the Barisan Sosialis that there is no need for him to attempt to ridicule the S.P.A./U.M.N.O Alliance so that we can be veered from doing our duty as a responsive organisation. On the one hand, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis tries to make us feel spiteful and vengeful. On the other hand - in fact, he has repeated this many times in his speech aimed at the Back Benches of the Government he says, "Ah, the Member for Bras Basah has seen the error of her ways and has disowned the P.A.P. and the Back benches of the Government should also wake up and disown the P.A.P. before it is too late." I would tell the Back benches of the Government, "Now is the time when you have to prove your mettle, when you have to show your worth in this fight against Communist perversion, Communist subversion and Communist threats. Let us show that we are united and rout them from the political life of Singapore." Again, Sir, the Member for Queenstown said, "Oh, after the defeat at Hong Lim, the P.A.P. should have resigned." But, Sir, if the awful disclosures of the Prime Minister are to be given credence, and I see no reason why they should not be given credence, it was the Barisan Sosialis who told the Government not to resign after Hong Lim. It is for them to deny this. They were the people who told the Government not to resign after the defeat at Hong Lim. They should not come to this august Assembly to distorts facts and try to make out that they are the true champions of democracy when they have been charged in this book [Indicating] that they are being manipulated and controlled by Communist and Communist-front leaders to damage the security and well-being of the people of Singapore. No one, especially we the Front Benchers here, will ever swallow any distortion, any threat, any attempt by the Barisan Sosialis to deter us from doing our duty. And another thing. Sir, they try to ridicule us. They say. "Well, the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance are just waiting to share in the spoils." Come, come, they had been sharing in the spoils until they got kicked out, or they ran away, or until they were found out that the plan of the Communists was to capture the P.A.P. Government. We do not want to go over there. We do not have to, Sir. We will remain here against every attempt by the Barisan Sosialis to pull the Government down for Communist purposes. We will meet that threat; we will fight them, and we will challenge them any time, anywhere even in Queenstown. If the Member for Queenstown wants to have a by-election in Queenstown tomorrow, we will meet them there, and prove to the world and to Singapore that the people of Singapore are fed up with Communist subversion and with the so-called leaders who are prepared to lend themselves to be made use of by Communists for their evil ends. Do not talk of general elections. Go to Queenstown, we will meet them there! Sir, the Member for Queenstown who is a medical man tries to make out that he is also a constitutional expert. He says, "Now that the Government is reduced to a minority of one, constitutionally they should resign." The Government has said, and I say it to him, "Go on, try your best to pull down the Government and serve the Communists, but you will find us always there to back the government against Communist subversion any time." He is not a constitutional expert, it could be that his speech has not been properly vetted by people who know how constitutions work. Yes, I say. "The P.A.P. came in with 43 Members in 1959." Yes, we all know that the P.A.P. came in with 43 Members in 1959; the Barisan Sosialis were there; the United People's Party were there and the Member for Bras Basah was there. On the whole, they did all they could to try to put an end to a responsible and effective Opposition. They ridiculed us at every stage. They say that the P.A.P. are in the process of disintegration today. The Communists have thrust upon me the responsibility of defending democracy against their subversion. The fact that the P.A.P. are 25 today means that they are stronger, better and cleaner than they have ever been when the Barisan Sosialis was with them, and I would like to pay tribute to them that they have fallen to the threats and intimidation of the Communists. They have at long last wakened to their responsibility. They are not disintegrating. They have cleansed themselves and I think they can work harder now - freer and happier - much to the discomfort of the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, if I were to start quoting from this hook. [Indicating] it will take a very, very long time, but as there is a guillotine at 12 midnight. I will give every consideration to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to state solemnly in this Chamber whether or not they find common cause with me to pull the Government down for having failed to discharge their sacred duty of restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis. If they want to find common cause, I offer them that common cause. We say that that is the biggest crime of the Government. All the others - arrogance, dishonesty, Press intimidation are pin-pricks to be expected of political enemies. These pin-pricks do not damage the well-being of the people of Singapore. We can take it and we can give it at the same time, but not when the well-being of the people of Singapore is at stake, when the Government is fully conscious of the building up of Communist forces in Singapore to tear down parliamentary democracy. 5.43 p.m.

If what the Prime Minister has tried to tell the people of Singapore and the world is true, that there has been a mounting of Communist forces, then this is now the hour to put an end to this threat. Sir, it would be foolish on the part of the Government - if, as they have admitted, the Communists are mounting an onslaught on the democratic forces in Singapore - to allow them time to build up the organisation. I think it is wrong for the Government to say. "They make one move. I make another move. Zugzwang! Ha, ha, ha! The Communists are beaten." This is not the way to run the country. If the Government feel and I know they do feel- that this Communist threat is genuine-

They do not mind it.

-and if they are sincere in their new utterances that they will see that the interests of the country are protected at all costs, they should wake up to the danger that is building up. It is easier to cripple them now and put an end to them than for the forces to mount up in every organisation in Singapore whose members, and where even some of the leaders, are foolish enough to be beguiled by them into supporting what they claim to be "defence of the democratic rights of the people of Singapore". They are making use of this and they are preaching the practice of democracy in order to damage and pull down democracy. Sir, the Member for Anson was sincere when he said that he had no confidence in the Government. He was sincere. In fact, in July 1961 the Member for Anson and the S.P.A./Alliance voted "no confidence" in the Government. He is sincere. He is honest. But in this scheme that the Communists are now putting up. I would urge upon him to reassess the situation. I would remind him that at the time when he was the Chief Minister he was a real stalwart of democracy and he was prepared to fight all out against Communist subversion and Communist "plague-carrying rats". That was what he called them, "plague-carrying rats".

Now they are his friends!

You are not my friend.

Let us try to find out the reason that impelled the leader of the Barisan Sosialis to table a motion of no confidence at this particular time. Why?

Why not?

Not because they want to pull down the Government because the Government committed all the crimes alleged by them - they were a party to those crimes - but because they want to stop merger and stop the referendum on merger.

Dishonest referendum.

Hear! hear!

I would appeal to the Member for Anson, with whom I was fighting shoulder to shoulder against the Communist threat during the time when he was Chief Minister, to remember that at this particular juncture, when the life and well-being of the people of Singapore are being threatened by the so-called democrats, in an organisation that has been proved to be manipulated and controlled by Communist and Communist-front leaders, not to be misled. He was prepared to fight then, and I know he will be prepared to fight now. Sir, of course, the Member for Anson and the S.P.A./Alliance voted no confidence in the Government in July, but the other Members not named by me, abstained. I hope that in this call to rid the country of "plague-carrying rats"-

The S.P.A.

-the Opposition will be united to prove that the interests of the country are above the S.P.A./U.M.N.O., above the Barisan Sosialis, above the Workers' Party, and above the U.P.P. Let us prove it. Those who do not prove it, do not try to put up the pretence of fighting for democracy, do not pretend any more. Today is the day, Friday the 13th, and this political event is unfolding itself in this Assembly.

You have had your democracy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, after this debate, it will be clear to the people of Singapore who are on the side of democracy, in defence against Communist subversion, and who want to play with fire, in the hope that they may be returned to power when the general elections take place. I would say to them, the P.A.P. played that game and got their fingers burnt. That is why today we have contempt for them. I would suggest that they too should not fall into the trap that they say the P.A.P. has fallen into. Let us be honest. Honesty is something that is a bit difficult to measure, but it is relative.

Chew Swee Kee.

Sir, what is more important is this. Never mind other people's estimation of what your honesty is. What is more important is this, that in your own estimation you are honest with yourself and honest in the eyes of God.

What about Chew Swee Kee?

Chew Swee Kee. That is all these people keep on talking of. What has Chew Swee Kee got to do with this present amendment? What has Chew Swee Kee got to do with the Communists? in fact, if that money had been given, we would have wiped out the Communists.

May I remind the Members of the Opposition, particularly the Barisan Sosialis, because they moved this motion, that they should give a fair chance to other Members to speak, a clear hearing of what the other Members have to say on this motion, Tun Lim.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I say, Sir, at the end of this debate, at twelve midnight. the witching hour, the people of Singapore will know the forces that are against Communist subversion and the forces that lend themselves to Communist subversion.

Hear, hear!

Sir, I would not like to talk too long, because there are so many Members of the Barisan Sosialis who want to stand up and say how democratic they are and how they are going to see to it that Singapore is rid of Communism. In fact, the Member for Queenstown has said, "If you can prove to me that there are Communists in the Barisan Sosialis, we will expose them." I say there are Communist and Communist-front leaders in the Barisan Sosialis. I dare him to expose them. 5.53 p.m.

I know, Sir, that the motion introduced by the Barisan Sosialis is an attempt to discredit the S.P.A., thinking that the S.P.A. would be so weak-kneed as to be frightened by the smear that the Barisan Sosialis can indulge in by going to the people and saying that the S.P.A. voted with the Government, and that the S.P.A. is afraid of general elections. We know they did. This motion is not aimed at the Government. They know that the Government cannot fail. This motion is aimed at the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance. It is a challenge to us. We take up that challenge and we challenge them that if they really mean to pull the Government down, let them pull the Government down on a common cause. Let us nail the real crime of the Government. Let us say that we express no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore. Those that love Malaya, those that love Singapore, those that are not for Communist subversion, should show themselves to be so by their votes on this debate. Anyone who votes against it. I am going to take it from now on that he is fighting the Communist cause. I now dare them as they have dared me.

Amen!

The original Question was, "That this House expresses no confidence in the Government." Since which an amendment has been moved, at the end, to add- "in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

On a point to order, Sir. Mr Speaker. I think I should clarify our stand on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill first before we proceed further on the debate. I just wish to inform the House that we do not treat the amendment as moved by the Member for Cairnhill as a vote of no confidence in the Government. But we rather treat it as what the Opposition wishes the Government to do. In other words, we treat it as a directive to the Government, of giving the Government a mandate. Therefore, we will be abstaining from voting on this amendment.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting to watch the roaring lion of Cairnhill inveighing publicly against the Communists. Sir, it is perfectly true to say that from our first association, he was always willing to co-operate in measures that were necessary to deal with the Communist threat. But when it came to speaking against Communism, Sir, in public, he was bashful, and as a good politician, his advice was I am sure he would not mind if I tell you this - at that time he said to me, "Don't keep on talking about anti-Communism. The people might misunderstand you and think you are anti-Chinese." I am glad to see, Sir, that today he frankly and openly, in public, declares strongly his anti-Communist stand, and I trust it means that he recognises that today our populace and our citizens do distinguish between the Chinese and the Communists.

I hope.

Sir, the original motion before the House is a motion to express the deep antagonism of the people of Singapore for a lifetime of three years of crime of the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill himself recognises that their crimes have been manifold and grievous. I say it is unnecessary to single out one aspect when there are so many; but since he has seen fit to single out one aspect. I want to say to him that I am happy to support him in his attack on Communism; I am happy to support him in his attack on the Communists in this area; for, Mr Speaker, progress in the democratic process has, I think, awakened more and more people to the basic evil of Communist dictatorship and its dangers for this territory, an evil that is, if possible - it is possible. Sir - even greater than the evil of the P.A.P. Fascist Government. Sir, insofar as the Prime Minister has alleged that he has information and evidence in respect of persons in Singapore who are Communists. I agree with the Member for Cairnhill in condemning him and condemning the Government for not making that evidence available in a court of law and for not charging those persons so that they might be dealt with. Sir, there are courts, and there are laws against Communism. Insofar as there might be an implication that the P.P.S.O. should be used - I would wish. Sir, not to evade any aspect of this motion; I say to you, the Member for Cairnhill knows my stand; it has always been the same - the P.P.S.O. is a breach in the rule of law necessary to meet emergency situations. It should be used in an emergency or to prevent an emergency, not otherwise. And he knows, having been in association with me in the enactment and implementation of this law, that that has always been my stand, not its utilisation as a routine measure. Sir, but its utilisation when there is a genuine threat to the security of the country. Sir, it irks indeed, and irks very much, that the Prime Minister himself, who of all people in this country should know the law and should seek to comply with the law, should refrain from taking action against known criminals - such known Communists - and thereby make himself an accessory after the fact. That he should be condemned is right and proper. Even more, Mr Speaker, it is right and proper to condemn the Government for using these very men as an excuse for measures endangering the welfare, the harmony and the unity of our people, such as section 29 of the Referendum Ordinance which was introduced on the excuse that these people may commit certain offences. If they could have been dealt with by our courts, then at least that specious excuse would not have been utilised. To the extent that such people have not been charged for measures endangering the welfare of the people of Singapore. I agree with the Member for Cairnhill in condemning the Government. But, Sir, I ask whether. in fact, the Member for Cairnhill genuinely condemns the Government. You see, Sir, he has phrased his amendment not merely to condemn the Government, not as a vote of no confidence in the Government, not as a vote of censure on the Government, but also as a vote of censure on the majority Party in the Opposition. It is, Sir, a double vote of censure.

Not by the vote of the people.

It is a clever parliamentary trick, a red herring in order to prevent the vote of censure from succeeding, in fact, you have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that in the light of the manner in which the Member for Cairnhill has moved his amendment, they do not consider it to be a vote of censure at all. I understood the Member for Cairnhill to have said, long before the series of 12 radio talks on "How I stab my friends and double-cross my colleagues" was given by the Prime Minister, that he and his Party and his colleagues voted against a vote of confidence in the Government. Sir, he recognises now, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, that by virtue of his amendment the motion of censure is no longer deemed to be a motion of censure because it is turned upon the Barisan Sosialis. I ask you, Mr Speaker, are the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" in this motion in any way pertinent to the motion because, by speaking of "Communist-front leaders manipulating and controlling organisations", he obviously implies, in the plural, that there are many organisations, why then limit it to one, if in fact that is a Communist front organisation and if, in fact, he seeks to condemn the Government? Why does he limit the example to one? Why have any example at all, Mr Speaker? On what basis does he say that the Barisan Sosialis are Communist controlled? He says, "I accept the statement of the Prime Minister that they are Communist-controlled." I must confess that I am surprised, Mr Speaker, that in a matter of the major Opposition Party he so lightly accepts a statement of the Government, which has proved itself politically dishonest in many respects, as being evidence that the Barisan Sosialis are, in fact, Communist controlled. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" are wholly unnecessary to the operative words of that motion and are indeed intended to defeat the motion. By seeking to ask the Barisan Sosialis to condemn themselves, which he knows he cannot do, because they deny they are Communist controlled, he therefore wants them to vote against the motion in order to save the Government, whereas the S.P.A. will vote in favour of the motion. Mr Speaker, he rather let the cat out of the bag when he appealed to me - and I appreciate the appeal, Sir - to recognise and reassess the position, because to bring down the Government would mean an end of the referendum and an end of the immediate negotiation for merger. So he made it known that he does not want to bring the Government to an end and he does not want a vote of no confidence in the Government. This is a bit of an eyewash. Roaring to the bushes that he is looking for wars, like Flagstaff. Mr Speaker, I trust you will permit me - it is incidental and arising out of what the Member for Cairnhill said - to explain my position with reference to this motion of no confidence. I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. I am convinced that the perfidy of -

I take it the hon. Member is speaking to the amendment. He must confine himself to the amendment. The hon. Member cannot now go back to the original motion. He will have his opportunity. I take it, i.e. if the guillotine does not fall.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, I will abide by your ruling, if you think I cannot make an explanation. I was asked why I wanted to vote in favour of a censure motion on the Government in the light of the fact that it might endanger merger. I thought I would like the opportunity of explaining, if you will permit, Sir. It is because of this that I believe - it may be I am wrong, Sir; many disagree with me - that the merger proposals as they stand, through the referendum as it stands, would endanger the stability of this area in the not distant future and that if, in fact, they were to fail at the present juncture, we would have a permanent basis in the foreseeable future for happy permanent relations. It is a matter of temporary postponement and no more. I will go on from there, Sir, having, I trust, not taken up too much time. I would like to ask the Member for Cairnhill - I am sorry he cannot answer, Sir, but perhaps a Member of his Party could - whether it is just at this juncture to condemn the Barisan Sosialis on the word of the Prime Minister alone, and whether it is appropriate at this juncture to move a double-headed motion of censure. You know, Sir, there is a phrase that I learned as a small boy about "Slowly, slowly, catch monkey" - one thing at a time. Sir, let us have this motion first which deals with the Government. In due course, if and when the occasion arises and there is evidence that the Barisan Sosialis are Communist controlled, I would be only too happy to support him in a vote of no confidence or an analogous vote against the Barisan Sosialis themselves. But it is inappropriate at this juncture because it is a red herring and seeks to abort itself. The amendment seeks to prevent itself from being passed by preventing a major Opposition group, quite unnecessarily, from voting in favour of the amendment he seeks. Mr Speaker, I have a very minor amendment to make, an amendment which I hope they will accept and which will still deal with the so-called democrats who threaten and strangle democracy in Singapore and who threaten the lives of our people. It is a simple amendment, Sir, It is a deletion of the words which are completely unnecessary to the spirit and intent of the motion. I move that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" be left out. If he will accept that, I will be happy to vote for his amendment, although, in fact, Sir, I am a supporter of the main one. I say the P.A.P. have committed innumerable crimes. I shall speak on that if there is time on the main Question. But at this juncture, since he wants to pinpoint their perfidy in dealing with known Communists against whom they have evidence, I am with him. But I say, do not abort your own amendment by making it impossible for a major political Party to support it and by condemning a major Opposition Party without adequate evidence as being Communist controlled. Let us be practical. I say, accept my amendment. I am with you in condemning both Communists and the action or the inaction of the Government in dealing with known Communists.

The original Question was "That this House expresses no confidence in the Government," Since which an amendment has bean moved, at the end, to add "in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore." Since which an amendment has been moved to the amendment to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". The Question now is "That the words `like the Barisan Sosialis' proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate must be confined to that amendment. The Member for Cairnhill is entitled to speak again on this amendment to the amendment.

The Minister for Health and Law has given me the opportunity to reply to give my views on the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. As I said earlier, Sir, the Member for Anson is honest in his desire to see that justice is done when injustice has been perpetuated. I was right also when I said he will still stand for democracy against Communist forces. But then he asked me, how it is I have named the Barisan Sosialis and on what evidence? I accept the statement of the Prime Minister. The Member for Anson even went to the extent of saying that when he was a little boy in school he was saying "Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey." Sir, the leaders who are now running the Barisan Sosialis were people whom the Labour Front Government detained as Communist subversives. The fact that the P.A.P. came out openly without any pretence and defence and nail them for what they are just proves that what the Lim Yew Hock Government did was right. The same men are running the Barisan Sosialis today in as much as they were, in my view, Communist subversives - they are still, in my view, Communist subversives. It is quite fair for the Member for Anson to ask why I should name the Barisan Sosialis. It is something like a double-headed motion, Sir, If the Member for Anson wants to learn why, let me tell him that this motion is not aimed at the Government. The Member for Anson feels strongly against the evil deeds of the Government. But the Barisan Sosialis are not governed by such pure sentiments. They are out to ridicule the Singapore People's Alliance. That was what they said. It was clear in their speeches. "Ha! The S.P.A.-U.M.N.O.- Alliance want to share in the spoils. They are sure not to let the Government fall." In as much as they tried to do it on us, it is not political trickery; it is fair game in politics to nail them as they try to nail us. Let them wriggle out of that. But it has to be left to the Member for Anson to come to their defence. Sir, he asked whether I was sincere in my condemnation of the Government. All I can ask him, Sir, is for him to refer to Hansard of the 21st July when the Government tabled the motion of confidence. He made his speech. I made my speech. Members of the S.P.A. Alliance made their speeches. It is clearly stated here that we have no confidence in the Government. But today, because of the manipulations of the Communists in trying to wreck merger and bringing up a motion to try to discredit the S.P.A., it is but fair that the S.P.A. should name the Communists for what they are. Exposure? Counter exposure, if the Member for Anson likes it. We in the Singapore People's Alliance are not little children who play "slowly, slowly, catchee monkey." We are grownups. We are out to catch the Communists at their own game, not playing "slowly, slowly, catchee monkey" at all. The Member for Anson may be fond of playing it, but we are not. This is a serious business, not for school children to indulge in. Sir, we gave our views whether we have or have no confidence in the Government in July last year. This year it is a different move, as I have said, but if the Member for Anson thinks I am doing this in order that the Barisan Sosialis will not vote for it - I do not worry whether they vote for it or not. All I know is they are Communist controlled, and it is fair for me to nail them as they try to nail me. The only thing is that my nail happens to be a bit bigger and hits harder. That is all. I accept the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson-

Hear, hear!

- because the Member for Anson and I believe in this fight - "Down with Communism! Up with Democracy in Singapore!"

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the original motion before the House today is that the Opposition has no confidence in the Government. We are challenging the right of this Government to carry on its moral right, and perhaps even its constitutional right, because it has no majority. Then what has happened is that we have the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill which has shifted the issue from whether this Government should carry on or not to, the issue of Communism. Mr Speaker, Sir, now we have further confusion - confusion as if a spanner has been thrown into the works by the Member for Anson who has shifted from the issue of no confidence in the Government, to the issue of Communism, and now to the issue of whether the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation or not. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of that, we're voting against the amendment to the amendment and to the amendment itself.

Inche Ahmad Jabri. On the question on the amendment to the amendment only.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. Speaking on the amendment to the amendment, on behalf of U.M.N.O., Mr Speaker, our stand on Communist subversives is clear.

I think the hon. Member has not understood me. We are now on the issue whether or not the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should be left in the amendment. We will deal with that first. After that has been disposed of, we will come back to the original amendment. Then the Member will have a chance to speak on it.

(In Malay): I understand, Mr Speaker, and I wish to give further evidence to delete the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". This is to further strengthen the speech made by the Member for Anson to determine now as to who are really fighting based on democratic principles and who are depending on Communist support. With this amendment, it may be that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis can show their true colours in regard to this matter. They have been charged on numerous occasions, as contained in the book issued by the Government, that the Barisan Sosialis is a Party where the strength of the Communists lies.

No other Member wishes to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the amendment only seeks to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". Sir, today the P.A.P. Government has been seeking opportunity to put a label on any organisation. Any person, any movement, that is against the P.A.P. will be a labelled "Communist, Communist-inspired, pro-communist". What difference does it make whether it is like the Barisan Sosialis or like something else? It merely falls into the trap of the P.A.P., and that is what they like. I will speak again on the Member for Cairnhill's amendment. This is only a red herring, as was pointed out by the Member for Anson. It is to give a chance to the S.P.A. not to vote against the Government in the original motion. You see, the S.P.A. want to support the P.A.P. yet they do not want to support it openly. So the only way for the S.P.A., under the circumstances, in order to get out of their trouble, is to draw a red herring across the trail and say something else to divert attention from the original motion. I will speak again when it comes to the amendment by the Member for Cairnhill.

Any other Member wishes to speak on the amendment to the amendment to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis"?

That will still give me the right to speak on the amendment proper.

Any Member who wishes to speak and who has not yet spoken can speak to the amendment to the amendment. When that is disposed of, we will come back to the original amendment. The amendment to the amendment is to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was out of the Chamber when the Member for Anson moved his amendment to the amendment. I understand the Member for Cairnhill has indicated that he accepts the amendment by the Member for Anson. Sir, in so far as the Member for Anson in his usual legalistic way defines it accurately, in other words, the intention is that the definition of "organisations" should not be restricted to "like the Barisan Sosialis", he is, in fact, as I understand this amendment, extending the area which is covered by the word "organisations". If there are the words "like the Barisan Sosialis", then there may be some doubt that it may be confined only to political Parties or to bodies like the Barisan Sosialis which are akin in nature. But with those words left out, as I understand it, the ejusdem generis clause does not apply. Sir, for those Members opposite who are not familiar with the rules that guide people in construing and interpreting documents, let me explain, particularly to the Member for Queenstown, the purport of the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. If we say "from manipulating and controlling organisations" without the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" you have given no example. Therefore, it is all organisations - old boys' associations, back-scratching associations, grandmothers' and grandchildren's friendship associations and-

Mothers' Day.

-Mothers' Day Committee, Trade Unions Working Committee, Council of Joint Action, Human Rights Committee, Banging of Woodensticks Committee, and so on. [Interruption] No, no, this is serious. I am giving an example. Now, if the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" remain, then in the execution of this directive one will have to go by the yardstick. Is the Council of Joint Action like or unlike the Barisan Sosialis? Is the Trade Unions Working Committee like or unlike the Barisan Sosialis? Because we have given an example, therefore we are covered by a rule of interpretation which says, if you have given a series of examples, then all the others must be like them - ejusdem generis - of the same genus.

I thought it was the Member for Cairnhill who gave the example.

Well, exactly. The Member for Cairnhill, I think without a proper grasp of legal principles and so on, probably thought in his own layman's way that if he pinpoints it on the Barisan Sosialis, then everybody will understand - I mean like the Member for Queenstown who is being manipulated and controlled.

What about Radio P.A.P.?

But the Member for Anson quite rightly, I think, has done a service to this House by removing this restriction which probably was never intended by the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, the stand of the P.A.P. is quite simple. On the amendment, Sir, there is no question of confidence. This is an amendment. It is not a motion. Therefore, it is not a motion of confidence. It can be voted upon; we shall abstain and it is up to the Opposition to give the country a lead. The views of the Government are well known. We say that our first duty is to throw light on the whole situation. Everybody understands what this is all about, what the game is for, who is playing what role. It has been suggested, Sir, that some of us have slept with Machiavelli. Well, it is our business to show who Machiavelli is, what he is doing, what his objectives are, who his other dolls on the stage are. Having done that, I think we will have done our democratic duty in informing the people exactly what is going on; and they also know the role the Member for Anson is playing. Of course, from time to time, he gets confused. For instance, I am not sure when he moved this amendment whether he realised that, in fact, he helped the Member for Cairnhill in achieving his original intention. The Member for Cairnhill has often said - publicly once in a radio forum with me, he egged me on - Our "sacred duty is to arrest and detain these people," and I explained to him that I felt our sacred duty was first to explain to the people what this was all about. These people knew, and I knew, that the game was up for them and, as I said yesterday, it is a fair cop. Therefore, I say that when the amendment to the amendment is taken and if it is carried by the Opposition, it will be the duty of the Government to bring this to the highest constitutional authority for security - namely, the Internal Security Council. Sir, the Member for Anson has helped us in this, and I would say that our business as the Government of Singapore is to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity on this motion to state where he stand's. Our stand is to spotlight all the moves that are being made. Everybody can understand why people are against merger, why they are doing what they are doing, why if one condition were asked for and agreed to, another condition is raised, and so on, and so on.

Order. The Prime Minister will agree that he is going away from the amendment to the amendment. We will come back to the other amendment.

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir. In our view, this is an exemplary move by the Member for Anson to define more broadly and in wider terms the purport of the motion by the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker, memories are short sometimes. As the Member for Anson said, only elephants have long memories. My memory is not that long and that is why I have to refer to Hansard. Now, in 1955, when the Member for Anson was Chief Minister, he had this advice to give to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, now the Prime Minister. Let me quote him, in column 241, Hansard of 16th May, 1955. This is what the Chief Minister, now the Member for Anson, said: `If the P.A.P., which consists of responsible, decent, honest men - many of them - if they would purge themselves of the Communists and fellow-travellers that they know they have, if they would face their own responsibility, they could be the organisation that they hope lo be that would one day lead this country to win its independence.' This was solemn advice given to the Member for Tanjong Pagar in this very Chamber barely seven years ago. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. has not so much by itself purged what the Member for Anson considered Communists and fellow-travellers. He was the Chief Minister-

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be reading from a text which is not relevant to the amendment to the amendment.

I have been watching the position very closely and I am wondering when the Deputy Prime Minister is coming to the amendment to the amendment. He probably is; I do not know.

Yes, I was coming to it. I am afraid the Member for Anson is a little like the cat on a hot tin roof. Sir, those Communists and fellow-travellers purged themselves out of the P.A.P. We did not do that ourselves. They purged themselves out in May last year. They did it, and all arose from a difference of views on the question of merger. Now the Member for Anson seeks to protect the leaders in the Barisan Sosialis. He seeks to protect the leaders in the Barisan Sosialis and yet barely seven years ago - let me refresh his memory - in the debate on the P.P.S.O. Mr David Marshall, who was then Chief Minister, had this to say about Mr Lim Ching Siong who was then in the P.A.P. and the Member for Bukit Timah. Let me quote Hansard of the 21st September, 1955, columns 696 and 697. This was what the Chief Minister, now Member for Anson, had to say vis-a-vis Mr Lim Ching Siong: `Sir, a letter signed by the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) throws light on the conduct of these pseudo-trade unionists who organised the abortive illegal strikes - I repeat, illegal strikes - of last June. The letter was typed on the head-note of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, 149 Middle Road, Singapore, 7, dated 12th of June, 1955, addressed to the Manager, Singapore Cold Storage Company, Limited, Orchard Road, Singapore. In referring to the so-called sympathy strike of the workers of the Cold Storage, this is what it says: "Sir, This is to notify you that the action taken by our members is not directed against your Company but is taken in support of the common demands of fraternal unions presented to the Government in respect of detained unionists." There we have, Sir, the naive admission by the Hon. Secretary - the name is Lim Ching Siong - the admission that the workers are made to suffer, not in pursuance of a trade dispute, but in order to blackmail the people's Government by mob coercion. It is a technique, Sir, of the Communists throughout the world to infiltrate trade unions and to work ostensibly for the welfare of the labourer in order to gain his confidence. Then, when the time is considered ripe, they sacrifice him. The Malays, Sir, have a word for this type of pseudo-trade unionists. They call them "topengs".'. And he went on relating the case of one trade unionist who was detained, Mr Yong Kok Kim, President of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union. He was detained then by the Member for Anson who was Chief Minister. And in column 697, this is what the Member for Anson had to say: `This, Sir, is what the Member for Bukit Timah had to say about the detention of Yong Kok Kim. I read from an article in the Straits' Times' of Monday, July 11, 1955, headlined "JAIL ME TOO, SAYS LIM". It is cheap to shout to the hushes that you are looking for wars when it is known full well that this Government does not arrest arbitrarily. Let us see what the statement was that the hon. Member issued. In a statement issued from the Union Headquarters in Middle Road, Mr Lim said: "The abuse of power provided by the Emergency Regulations has once more been displayed by the arrest of Mr Yong Kok Kim." Abuse of power, Sir. "I", said Mr Lim, "share the same beliefs and have the same aims as Fong Swee Suan and Yong Kok Kim. I therefore challenge the Government to arrest me too."'. The Chief Minister, now Member for Anson, went on to relate to the House that Mr Yong Kok Kim was convicted in an open court of law and sentenced to five years' imprisonment for terrorist activities.

Hear, hear!

And the ex-Chief Minister then issued a challenge to the Member for Bukit Timah: `Sir, in the light of this statement of the Member for Bukit Timah - that he shares the same aims and the same beliefs as this convicted man - and in the light of the statements he has seen fit to issue criticising the present Bill, in lurid language, I think it is pertinent to enquire and to ask him whether he speaks as a man loyal to the democratic process and to the people and territory of Singapore, or whether he speaks as a Communist and a fellow sympathiser of the Communists.'

What did the P.A.P. Member say?

Mr Speaker, it is extraordinary indeed that the Member for Anson, previously Chief Minister, who knew all the details of what happened during his regime, should this afternoon stand up not only to defend the Barisan Sosialis but also to work in cahoots with them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all Malayan nationalists deplore the utter lack of moral principles and of ordinary human decency of the Member for Anson - a former Chief Minister of Singapore - in allowing himself to be used as a willing tool of the Malayan Communist Party and their open-front leaders in their fight against Malayan nationalism and condemn his political dishonesty-

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have repeatedly pulled up Members for misrepresentations. Is that not misrepresentation, suggesting that I am co-operating with the Malayan Communist Party on this motion?

I expected the Member for Anson to get up on a point of order as to whether this is relevant to the amendment to the amendment. We have not come to the main amendment yet. We are now deciding whether or not the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should remain in the amendment. Mr Byrne.

I am prepared to wait for my opportunity. I am going to deal with him very adequately tonight.

Order. I think I had better sound a note of warning. If the Minister for Law wishes to deal with the Member adequately, he must be relevant and he must not lose his temper. Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

Sir, the original motion moved by the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson reads as follows:- `That this House expresses no confidence in the Government.' Then the Member for Cairnhill moved an amendment to add, at the end, the words: `in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore.' After which, the Member for Anson, one of the movers of the original motion, suggested an amendment, to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". So the motion now reads: `That this House expresses no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore.' We are now speaking on the amendment of the Member for Anson who wishes to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". Now, Sir, I take it from this amendment that he is in sympathy with the other words of the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill; in other words, he deplores the Government's failure to restrain known Communist and Communist-front leaders. That I am taking is a fair appraisal of the stand of the Member for Anson. He deplores the Government inactivity in internal security matters. His only concern is that the Government should take action, not only against the Communists who are manipulating organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, but organisations in general. including his own Party - the Workers' Party - which he has admitted has been captured.

On a point of order, Sir. Just how often is falsehood to be permitted when it is refuted repeatedly, Sir?

I must ask the Minister for Finance not to harp on an old tune which has really gone very old. If the Minister for Finance feels strongly about it, he must file a notice of motion to allege that the Member said that the Workers' Party has been captured.

Let us get our facts straight: first, on the facts; second, on the relevance of the facts to the amendment. I would like to establish a direct connection between these two. Before the interruption, I said that the Member for Anson admitted that his Party had been captured. I never said by whom. And he said, "They have captured my Party, but they cannot capture me."

I think we must not go back on this - what I call "battledore and shuttlecock". We are going back to my childhood days. Let us try and be men now. Let us try to debate in a proper parliamentary manner.

I am talking on a point which is quite central to the amendment to the amendment - that is, the capture of his Party. I will not, if you so desire, go into the details of who did the capturing. Let us agree that he has some ideas about it, and we have some ideas about it. But his Party has been captured. Let us stop at that. This is directly related to his amendment, because I say that obviously he wants the Government to take action against known Communist and Communist.-front leaders who are controlling and manipulating, not only the Barisan Sosialis, but also other Parties, including his own Party. That is the point.

As far as that is concerned, the Minister is in order. But if he alleges that the Member for Anson said that his Party was captured when the Member for Anson time and again says that he did not say that, I think that is just "battledore and shuttlecock". But he is entitled to say that in his view the Party has been captured.

Quite so, Mr Speaker, Sir, but you will recollect that at the moment of interruption by the Member for Anson, I never said who did the capturing. The records are there. The moment I said he admitted his Party was captured, he stood up and said that that was quite wrong.

Get a new record.

So this, I take it, is the purpose of the amendment to the amendment, and I can see no other possible interpretation. Now, Sir, the stand of the P.A.P. Government on this matter of internal security has been stated every so often, but it seems to bear repetition, because both the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Anson seem to be under some misapprehension as to the powers of the Government in respect of internal security.

I am sorry to interrupt again, Mr Speaker, Sir.

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The issue of internal security is on the amendment proper, not on my amendment to the amendment.

I take it that the Minister for Finance is coming to the amendment to the amendment and not debating the original amendment. [Interruption] Order. Mr Sergeant at Arms, I think order should be kept in the Gallery. The strangers in the Gallery appear to imagine that they are in a theatre.

I just mention the powers of the Government in regard to internal security really in passing, and I do not want to develop that theme at all at length. But it is relevant to the amendment to this extent: insofar as we are not the final arbiter - or indeed any arbiter - in matters of internal security, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the Member for Anson wants to take action against the Communists manipulating the Barisan Sosialis, or the Communists in general. Therefore, we say, as between the amendment proposed by the Member for Cairnhill and the amendment to the amendment, quite frankly we await directives from Members of the Opposition. If they want the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill to be passed in this Assembly, then we shall be most pleased to take note of the wishes of the Opposition Parties in this respect. On the other hand, if they think that the operations of Communist and Communist-front leaders are so extensive that action should be taken on a broader field, then we are quite happy to take note of their wishes and transmit them to the proper authorities who control matters of internal security.

I wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the Member for Anson moved this amendment, we were quite happy to accept it, because, On reflection, it did occur to us that it placed the Barisan Sosialis in a very awkward position. Although the Government had accused them of being manipulated by the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis had always denied it. Those denials, to my mind, were worthy of belief. So, I was a little horrified, Mr Speaker, when the leader of the Barisan Sosialis got up and said, "I will not accept the amendment to the amendment." Mr Speaker He did not say whether he will support it.

I thought he spoke on the amendment to the amendment. I am subject to correction here. I thought he said, "I cannot accept the Member for Anson's amendment to the amendment." Am I right?

Perhaps the Member for Queenstown will confirm?

Yes.

The Member for Queenstown does not say anything; then the hon. Member, must accept that that is so.

Yes, I understood it to be that during the course of the debate, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, or somebody from the Barisan side, had said that he will not support the amendment to the amendment - that is, to make it more plain, the deletion of the - phrase "like the Barisan Sosialis".

Yes.

Thank you, Sir, I was horrified when the Member for Queenstown said that. It appeared to me that if he was genuine in contesting the allegations of the Government that his Party is being either controlled or has been captured by the Communists or Communist-front leaders, then the natural implication of that is that his is a completely democratic Party without any Communists or Communist sympathisers' affiliations; and on that basis, he would have been able to agree with the Member for Anson, which would have put his Party in a position to vote on the amendment with the Member for Cairnhill. Now, why then does the Member for Queenstown deny the amendment to the amendment? Could it be for the reason that if he denies the amendment to the amendment, then on the amendment itself, he would not be in a position to vote for the reason that he cannot himself condemn himself as being a member of a Communist-controlled organisation? Is the game a deep one, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Any Member wishing - to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

Mr Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? If the Member for Queenstown appears puzzled, perhaps the Chair would be of great assistance to the whole House if the meaning of the amendment to the amendment were made clear. He appears puzzled, Mr Speaker, Sir. An hon. Member: He has no directive.

I think the Member for Farrer Park repeated the allegation three times. I asked the Member for Farrer Park to repeat it a third time so that the Member for Queenstown could hear clearly, and the Member for Queenstown indicated that the Member for Farrer Park was correct. In other words, the Member for Queenstown did not wish that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should be left out. The Member for Queenstown has indicated that he wishes that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should remain in the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our understanding of the amendment is this, that whatever the organisation, whatever the name of the person or organisation that is put down makes no difference, because the whole idea of the amendment is to allow the Government a chance to put the blame on the Communists.

Order. I cannot allow the Member to make another speech. So that is the correct understanding of the position. The Member for Queenstown desires that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should remain in the amendment. No other Member wishing to speak? I will then put the Question. Question put, "That the words `like the Barisan Sosialis' proposed to be left out, be left out." An hon. Member: Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 15; Abstentions, 25; Absent, 3. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri Bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammed Akib. Miss. Lim Yew Hock. Lee Siew Choh. Marshall, David. Leong Keng Seng. Mohd. Ali bin Lin You Eng. Alwi. Low Por Tuck. Rajah, A. P. Ng Teng Kian. Seow Peck Leng, Ong Chang Sam. Mrs. Ong Eng Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tee Kim Leng. Abstentions. Teo Hock Guan. Wong Soon Fong. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Abstentions-(cont.) Absent. Chor Yeok Eng. Ahmad bin Goh Chew Chua. bin Ibrahim. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Kandasamy, G. Madam. Koh, C. H. Lingam, S. V. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment to the amendment accordingly negatived.

We are back to the original amendment, that is, at the end of the original motion, to add, "in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the wellbeing of the people of Singapore".

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Since the amendment to the amendment has been defeated it is, in fact, significant in this respect. The words "like the Barisan Sosialis" are again part of the motion and the Barisan Sosialis is thereby, by implication, an organisation manipulated and controlled by the Communists. Perhaps you, Sir, would clarify?

I think the Speaker should not be called upon to interpret what is in the amendment and, for that matter, the Prime Minister will no doubt speak on it later on.

Penang and Malacca!

Order. I have heard enough of Penang and Malacca.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not our view that we have failed to discharge our sacred duty in protecting the internal security of Singapore. What we dispute in the amendment is that by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders, from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, we have endangered the well-being of the people of Singapore. So the purport of the amendment, therefore, is that the Government, in order to discharge its, duty, has got to restrain - a euphemism, restrain - known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations. Sir, it has been our view all along that this simple and blunt method of dealing with the Communists does not provide a complete answer to our security position. It is our intention to abstain on the whole amendment and let the Opposition decide. And on the decision of the Opposition to this amendment, certain consequences and significant conclusions will be drawn by the relevant authorities. But let me explain the Government's policy and the Government's approach to this problem. Yesterday we had the advantage of hearing the Member for Cairnhill admit in this Chamber that we do know the Communists and their methods. That is the compliment he has paid us. And because we do know how they manipulate things and how to counter their manipulations, we therefore abstained on a motion moved yesterday by the Member for Thomson. Now, I will move one step further, that not only did we know, and we still know, how they operate, how they manipulate, and therefore know how to counter them and their manipulations, but in the long-term, what we are doing is a necessary phase in the history of Malaya and of Malaysia. Sir, this is an aspect of the problem which I think the people of Singapore and of Malaysia must see clearly. Our view is that the problem of Communism and the Communists is not purely the security problem of restraining the - Communists from activity. Basically, this is an important aspect of security. restraining them from doing damage to society. I will later on explain how we have prevented them, within the play of democratic methods, from doing harm. But, first, let me explain the whole problem. The appeal, the pull of Communism, is basically one which springs from poverty and frustration. Economic and social distress provide a breeding ground upon which the Communist creed can grow, can recruit and gain strength. Without those conditions, it has been proved over and over again that however militant, however cunning, however active, their movement cannot gather strength. Sir, immediately after the Second World War, the Communist attack was on Europe, a war-ravaged and destroyed Europe. The industrial edifice of Europe was nearly completely razed to the ground, literally. Stalin's massive effort was to capture Europe, for once he captured Europe, he had captured the whole of the industrial potential of the known industrialised world, and he would capture the world. But what defeated the Communist was not the effectiveness of the strength of the Italian police, or the French police, or the West German police - although they were important factors in isolating and containing known Communist operators. The basic factor that prevented a Communist capture of Europe was the economic booster that they got from the United States in Marshall Aid that rejuvenated European industries that have built now, 17 years after the war, a prosperous common market in Europe, one so prosperous that even Britain is reluctantly compelled to consider joining. True the Italian Communist Party still has a following, particularly in the industrial north. It is also true that the French Communist Party is powerful. But what is true is that they have been halted, checkmated, not primarily by being contained, restrained and detained, but by the economic prosperity that dispels frustration, despair and banishes poverty and brings in prosperity. I have explained this thesis before. I will only broadly touch on the problem. Sir, a population that is advancing economically, that has something - to look forward to tomorrow, something better than today, and for their children even something better next year, the year after that, the next decade - that is not a population which is likely to throw away the past and grope madly for change and revolution. It is only, as in the case of China, when utter and absolute despair has enveloped a whole people; when the intelligentsia and the educated have lost faith in this system and the people have reached a breaking point, that they cast off the old because nothing could be worse than the old. That was the point. Communism expanded and overwhelmed China. When one day you found that your hundred thousand yen would buy half a katty of rice and two days later you find that it would probably buy you three tahils of rice - in that situation men's minds lose their bearings and they go for a change. In North Vietnam a situation approaching that took place, slightly different in that the colonial power by its stupidity in staying on brought about a united front not only of the Communists - even today the North Vietnamese Communist Party is not known as the Communist Party; the Vietcong Workers' Party brought about a united front which gathered together the Communists, the non-Communists, the liberals, the intellectuals and everybody against the society. The net result, of course, was that in such a united front, they being the best organised of the groups, when victory came, they were the dominant power. Over the years all the peripheral organisations allied to the united front will slowly wither away and the quintessence of the Communist elite will slowly take over. If I were a Vietnamese in that situation, I would have joined them in the united front, as I would have gone on with the united front, my colleagues and I, with the Communists and with everybody else to fight the British to end colonial rule. But, fortunately for us, we did not have to face our problems so hopelessly as the Vietnamese have. By the time they had finished with the colonial power, the whole of the Vietminh Army, the whole of the officer cadre were Communists. There was no question of any other alternative and going on with the united front. In the South, well, a different situation obtains and the light goes on, not a fight which I would have liked to be involved in. But we are in a happier position, that even before independence, the British made it quite clear that they were going to withdraw from the political arena. That is important. True, they have got economic interests in this country, large vested interests in rubber or tin and the distributive trade. But politically they made it quite clear, as far back as 1955 in the Federation, that they were prepared to withdraw. So the objective of the united front became possible of consummation before the Communist forces became strong enough to overwhelm all the other parties. Sir, let me take our problems of Singapore. The British offered no such escape. Their original plan in 1955 and 1956 was to hold Singapore indefinitely as a military base. I remember vividly the first conference in 1956. I did not think the Member for Anson knew who was playing what game. He had a delegation of 13, but I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis would not be as unlucky as the former Chief Minister's band of 13. He wanted independence to allow Singapore to send representatives to the United Nations. That is one of the most important things, Sir. But without independence you cannot go to the United Nations. Sir, a worthwhile national aspiration. We have a delegation there in the United Nations to play on the world stage. After all, Singapore is a small place, has a small audience, but there, there is the world Press. So he devised a scheme whereby we would get independence and he would hand back almost in perpetuity by treaty, defence and external affairs. It was a mad scheme which I did not think had half a chance of getting off the ground. However, he was encouraged by the Member for Bukit Timah to fight for no less. We finally persuaded him. They said, "All right. Let foreign affairs and defence be in British hands." The clash came on security. The British wanted the predominant voice, the chairmanship and the casting vote. We proposed an alternative with the concurrence of the then Member for Bukit Timah, which is important, Mr Speaker, Sir, for then I could not be outflanked by leftist adventurers in Singapore. He agreed that a fair compromise was that the Federation should have the casting vote, because we all believed in merger; we all believed that that was the way towards independence. Believe it or not, Mr Speaker, the Colonial Secretary refused. May 1956. The intention was that they were to stay here indefinitely. No freedom was in sight. And if no freedom was in sight, the united front struggle must go on. Sir, I put this argument to the then Colonial Secretary. He was an extremely able man who not only could run one conference at any one time whilst he was doing the Singapore conference, looking after the ups and downs of the Member for Anson, who was then the Chief Minister; but he was also looking after Malta and several other places besides, places which were all on the boil. I put to him this simple argument, if you lose Malaya to Communism, then you have lost Singapore. There is no hope of holding Singapore. There is as much chance of holding Singapore from a Communist Malaya as Hong Kong from a Communist China. If tomorrow the Chinese Communist Government decide to take Hong Kong, nothing can stop it. He did not see the logic of it or he did not want to admit the logic of it. I argued with him that as long as Malaya is non-Communist, his base survives. And what better way of deciding the security of Singapore than to have the casting vote in the hands of a Government that has a direct and vital interest in Singapore, because its own survival is intimately tied to Singapore? But the Colonial Secretary refused - 1956. The events that followed are familiar to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Tumultuous scenes in this House. Moments of great excitement. Then the anti-climax. And in 1957 we reached agreement. In that one year some progress was made in thinking in London, that if Malaya became Communist, then the base in Singapore anyway would be useless. Therefore, it was agreed that the casting vote would be with the Federation of Malaya. That was crucial. If one side disagreed, then a new phase opened. In other words, an admission was made that the two territories were intimately linked. If one was lost, the other was lost. Mr Speaker, Sir, from that moment the gradual drift away from the united front tactics began. In June, we reached agreement in London that Malaya should have a casting vote. In August Malaya itself became independent. You will recall that I reported in this Assembly a conversation I had with the boys then in camp - the people intimately connected with the leadership of the P.A.P. to whom we owed a responsibility. They said that that brought about a metamorphosis of the whole situation. From then onwards the Malay soldiers, the Chinese Home Guard, the Indian policemen - they are no longer mercenaries of the colonial power, but they are sentinels guarding the independence of the newly-acquired Malayan independence. A basic and fundamental change of role. And the continuance of the M.C.P. struggle thereafter became an attack not on the colonial power but on a newly independent Government freely elected by the people. That began the new phase. From then onwards we set down our new stakes - what we were fighting for. Sir, the Member for Queenstown has talked about our mandate - that we had no mandate - to bring merger about. Let me read to him his pledge signed, sealed and delivered with Tann Wee Long, the legal adviser of the Barisan Sosialis, attesting. He said here, signed, sealed and delivered on the 11th day of May 1959: "I, Lee Siew Choh, of No. 358G Dunearn Road, Singapore, 11, hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood the 4th Anniversary Celebration Souvenir issue of the Petir, the organ of the P.A.P. published on the 22nd November, 1958, and the Five-Year Plan of the P.A.P. announced at a Special Party Congress of Saturday, 25th April, 1959, and I declare that I am in full agreement with the P.A.P.'s policy as set out therein. I hereby covenant with the P.A.P. that if I am elected to the Singapore Legislative Assembly and if I should ever later resign or be expelled from the P.A.P., I shall forthwith resign from the Singapore Legislative Assembly." Solemn words, Sir. This is what he read and said he understood.

I take it this is relevant to the amendment which deals with the Communists?

This is to show how the Barisan Sosialis came about and why they became a Communist-controlled organisation. We made it quite clear in this policy statement what we stood for. It says here. "The New Phase After Merdeka: Our Tasks and Policy". This is a little book which I gathered together and which I thought would contain all the useful documents to remind them of what they had subscribed to. It said here, page 148 - "The New Phase Since Merdeka." Can I read at the bottom of the page, Sir, on November 21, 1954, we added: `though because of the division of Malaya into two territories we are technically a political Party operating in Singapore, we shall, in all our approach to the problems of this country, disregard the constitutional division. We are as actively interested in the problems of our fellow Malayans in the Federation as we are in those of Singapore. When Malayans in the Federation who agree with our aim join us, we shall work throughout Malaya.' This is even more true now than four years ago, for to achieve freedom in an island we must achieve merger. Singapore, by itself an island of 224 square miles with a population of 1.5 million that was four years ago. Mr Speaker; now it is 1.7 million, as the Member for Queenstown says living mainly on its trade with the Federation and Indonesia, cannot hope for anything more than the status of Hongkong or Taiwan. It goes on to say on page 151: `We must strive for national unity and solidarity, and anything that stands in the way must be overcome.' It is as simple as that. That is the foremost objective-

Not the White Paper?

The White Paper is bringing about the reunification-

A phoney merger!

Well, the Member for Thomson will find out how very real it is after it has taken place. Mr Speaker, Sir, we got the boys in Changi to endorse it wholeheartedly. Page 148 - "Ends and Means of Socialism." They issued this. Subsequently it was suggested at the Socialist Front Conference in Kuala Lumpur, not by the people who signed this - because I think it would have been too barefaced a lie for them to say that it was under duress - that they were being released from prison and they issued this on their release. But the Chairman of the Socialist Front Conference said all these documents were not admissible because he feared it might have been under duress. Mr Lim Ching Siong, he said, was under duress. We allowed him free passage in the C.P.A. Room, free use of the C.P.A. telephone- An hon. Member: And coffee!

- coffee, tea, anything he likes. Mr Speaker, Sir, more democratic no government can be. An hon. Member: Why did you not stop him?

Why should we want to stop him? Sir, this is what he said. Page 184: `With regard to the immediate tasks particularly in the new phase since the achievement of political independence by the Federation of Malaya, we endorse the stand taken by the P.A.P, in the document "The New Phase After Merdeka" [that is the one I have just read]. Let me read just one short passage on page 187: `Once the problem of linguistic and cultural unity is on the way to being resolved, fears and suspicions will fade away. We must face the facts. So long as the fight was against British colonialism, the differences between the peoples of Malaya were muted and dulled in the desire to achieve the common goal of freedom by common effort. Now that this freedom has been won in the Federation, all the differences come back into their own. They can and must be resolved and we in Singapore can set the way to the solution of these important differences in language and culture.' Now, this is what we can and must do in this next phase of our struggle for freedom - the struggle for merger. There is no nonsense there about abolition of the Security Council; more self-government and all this new-

No White Paper-

-new united front line bringing the two territories together, getting 15 representatives into the Federation Parliament.

What is bad about that?

I thought they subscribed to these views.

Yes, merger.

Merger? Alternative (b) - let them have it: complete and unconditional. But this was the point. A new phase entered and we pegged them down to the nationalist line. They wanted to carry on a united front with us, it was a united front for nationalist, non-Communist, socialist purposes. Not for Communist purposes. We made that decision in 1957, Mr Speaker, Sir, and if anybody tells lies and is a traitor to any cause, it is they who told lies when they signed these documents, never sincerely subscribing to them and opting out of these documents the moment they found that they could not make use of us. Those are the facts. The Member for Thomson was then not with them, Mr Speaker, Sir. He knows very little about this because what he knew were about the open documents. Let me explain the position. Had this Government carried out the policy of the last Government, then we would have got into an impasse. Sir, this is a simple exercise in logic. The British wanted this base to go on as long as possible in the same old way, with them as sovereign. The Federation wanted Singapore to be reasonably quiet, peaceful, prosperous and no problem to them. A Singapore Government elected can either fight for the long-term rights of the people or play the short-term game of the British in keeping this situation contained. Sir, to keep the place happy and prosperous, you must have economic expansion; you must have first an economic base - a common market. Without that, nobody is going to put his money in Singapore. We have tried it. We have fought hard for a common market.

On a point of order, Sir, Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is irrelevant to the debate at the moment.

I was just wondering how it is related.

It is very simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. The motion is that we have failed to discharge our sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore, and then they define how we should do it, by restraining known Communists and so on and so on. I am going to show that that is not the way to discharge our sacred duty. It is as simple as that. We did a lot of thinking. [Interruption.] An hon. Member: Lock them up.

Yes, indeed. That is what they want us to do. Lock them up. Then they become martyrs fighting against colonialism. Then we are tools of the colonialists.

Anti-Communist, are you?

That is their line. No, why should we do such foolish things? They run around. We say, "All right, a common market first, economic expansion, prosperity."

Where is the common market?

It is coming. The U.N. Commission is already on the way. The common market is coming with merger and Malaysia. And a bigger common market too - 130,000 square miles.

Second-class citizens.

No. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are foolish words by tender foots in the game. Tenderfoots fighting hard for the second-class badge. [Interruption]

The Opposition should realise there is a guillotine. If they interject in this way, the Prime Minister must respond.

I always try to keep everybody happy, Sir, including the Opposition, in so far as I can. I do not object to them, if it gives them some release from their inhibitions and their frustrations. I say, so be it. Let me explain this exercise. If there is no common market, then it means no economic expansion. Then that means more social unrest, more unemployment, more problems. We have gone through this drill; so let us face the problem now. They helped us in 1961. They helped us enormously. They brought home the problem vividly to Kuala Lumpur. Everyday in the fierce things they say, they help to bring the problems home. Suddenly it was generally recognised that there must be merger; there must be a common market, or the position could not be contained. Now had we played the other game, then the position would have been contained for five years, for the life of this Assembly. There is no problem. They are cornered. They are kept down. We are the stooges of the British for having cornered them, because obviously with no independence the interests that are served and protected are British interests, because they are the sovereign power. But with independence, that is a different proposition. The interests that are served are Malayan and Malaysian interests. When they go down, it is not because they are fighting against the British, but because they are trying to down an independent popularly-elected government, and they will deserve what they get. That is a different proposition. So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, very far from not discharging our sacred duty, I submit that we have discharged our sacred duty in the best possible way in these given circumstances. There would be no talk of merger, no Malaysia, had we continued the policy of the last Government. The last Government unfortunately did not understand what it was all about. I do not blame them because they opened Pandora's Box. It all started with the Member for Anson. He opened it. He asked for Assistant Ministers. He kept on opening Pandora's Box. Suddenly out popped a weasel and all the Member for Cairnhill could do was to put the weasel back and close Pandora's Box. I do not think, in the long term, that that is the right approach, because it has to be resolved not on a sectionalised basis - Singapore alone - because Singapore is not viable. If we go down, it is not Singapore that goes down, but Malaya and Malaysia also go down.

The P.A.P. goes down.

The P.A.P. going down is an irrelevance. It is an utter irrelevance. The P.A.P. was quite willing to give up after Hong Lim in May 1961, when there was no merger and no Malaysia in sight, because it meant progressive deterioration in the employment situation, more unrest, more discontent, and no solution. It is that simple.

There is no change.

No, but there is. Now, new vistas open up a common market, security, economic expansion, political stability-

Phoney.

- a bigger common market. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are facts - facts! They miscalculated and they helped us inadvertently to bring about merger and Malaysia, at a pace and a speed which we never imagined possible at the beginning of 1961. And everyday that they continue this, they help us more. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have not only discharged our duty, but we have done it in the way most beneficial to the people of Singapore in the long run. The problem of Communism is a world problem. The problem of Singapore is a very special one of a small contained island dependent for its economic survival on the Federation of Malaya. It is not our business to run this as an appendage. Either we are part of the whole and the whole survives, or we are not interested in keeping this appendage going, kept down and contained for the benefit of either the British or, for that matter, the Federation Government. If the Federation Government's attitude had been that Singapore meant nothing to them and could go down the drain, then I say, so it would have happened. Logic, aided by the vivid examples of their own postures and wild statements, has brought about this sudden change - a realisation of the vital interdependence of the two territories and the vital interdependence of the five territories. Sir, at the same time, let me explain, and they know full well how we kept the situation contained. None of those whom we suspected of being insincere when they signed these documents were given access to secret or confidential files. None of those whom we suspected of being insincere when they issued those documents pledging support for the P.A.P.'s policy of merger and Malaysia and a non-Communist, socialist Malaya were ever given their citizenship. We are not going to be pushed and coerced into doing that. Whether Jamit Singh shouts "Keras, keras" two-times or ten times, he does not get his citizenship. Nor will Mr Fong Swee Suan get his citizenship.

Go to Tanjong Pagar.

That is all right. We shall go back. We are not running away. We do not intend to run away whatever our shortcomings. The Member for Thomson ought to know us long enough to realise that we stay and fight for what we believe in. We are not interested in forming a new coalition to keep the Government going. If this Government is voted out, it will put down its responsibilities and discharge itself of its obligations. But let me inform the Member for Thomson - if he has not done the calculation - the boys behind him have done so-

He is a parasite. [Laughter]

Confidence motion! Who wants a general election and defeat merger and Malaysia in the melee of a general election? The Member for Hong Lim is an extremely alert-

Let us have a general election now.

Now he wants a general election. Now he wants to be given an opportunity when he knows he is absolutely safe. He knew he would be absolutely safe, so he voted with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad that the situation is what it is, because it helped to bring a catalyst to the whole situation. The pace at which events take place and develop will be quickened. He said that. He is on the record of this House that he does not want a general election. That was why he was really fighting us.

Do not distort.

Order. The Member for Hong Lim is a much more seasoned Parliamentarian. He knows he can stand up on a point of elucidation.

It is in the Hansard, Sr.

On a point of clarification, Sir. The issue then was whether the White Paper should be decided in a referendum or in a general election. From what we know of a referendum and a general election, we thought in a referendum there will be only one issue, but in a general election there will be a confusion of issues. The situation has changed now because we know the Government is going to hold a sham referendum. Here we have a Government which has no majority. It is a minority government trying to push through its White Paper proposals for a sham referendum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim will get himself more and more involved. All these things are on the record. He has gone on record as saying that there should be at least two questions posed - two alternatives - that is on the record. I am sending up for it, Mr Speaker. He does not want a general election, because he knows he will be corroded with this process. He is no tenderfoot in this -

On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the Prime Minister that those persons whom he smears as Communists now were with him fighting on the same platform together on the ground in the Hong Lim by-election. Still how many votes could they get? Every time we are ready to go down to the people for a general election-

Big words which he knows will never be taken on. If they were to be taken on, he would be absent.

Because you are scared.

No, no, it does not matter what happens to us. We will discharge our responsibilities, because if we resigned we would let down the people who have faith and confidence in us, who want to see Malaysia through. That is the reason. The Prime Minister opened his despatch box. An hon. Member: Pandora's Box!

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not opening Pandora's Box. There is only one box inside. This is what the Member for Hong Lim said - this was on the 17th of April, the Revised Transcript, page 36 [Vol. 17 No. 8, Col. 813]: `If the worst comes to the worst and the people were asked what type of merger they would prefer, then the ballot paper should put forward the two alternatives which the two groups of Parties in this Assembly have supported.' No question of yes and no. Two alternatives - we gave them two. If they want three, we will give them three.

Why put in an alternative?

Why put in an alternative, Mr Speaker? Everybody knows this is not in the larder. It is something more than what any other State has got.

It is not for you to decide. It is for the people.

Yes, it is for the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis to bring up an exchange of letters between him and the Tunku to show that that is an alternative. If he produces an exchange of letters, I will put that willingly down as an alternative. He produces an exchange of letters which said, "kind and warm regards", and the other party was so surprised he thanked him for the "warm and kind regards". [Interruption].

Order. May I remind the Barisan Sosialis that there is a guillotine at 12 midnight, and if they interject, I cannot stop the Prime Minister from answering them.

We are a minority government and therefore We can be voted out. Collect 26 votes and vote us out. I say we are properly discharged from our responsibilities, but as long as we are not discharged from our responsibilities in a constitutional way, it is our duty to see this through whatever the threats, whatever the price we pay personally for it. Sir, they can choose Tanjong Pagar. Let them all turn up at Tanjong Pagar. So what? So we shall do what is right by the people.

Go to Cairnhill.

We will meet them. If they are so confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, why do not the 13 Barisan Members resign? Opposition Members: Shame, shame!

Prove to us-

Order. Now I think I must ask the Barisan Sosialis not to interject. We are just wasting time and we are going far away from the amendment.

Sir, we ended the last session on a motion of confidence called by the Government. They did not want a motion of confidence. "Withdraw it, withdraw it." was the plea. "We all supported the Government." That was the plea. They had the choice then to vote against the Government and show their displeasure, but the people supported the Government. We must carry on. It is our sacred duty. They wanted us to carry on and hoped to capture us from the rear. But we were fully aware of the problems connected with the united front. The Member for Hong Lim is an experienced hand. He was booted out in 1957 by the machinations of these boys. And he talks about fighting on the ground together. They were fighting against us whenever it suited them. He knew it. That is why he has got it in his Constitution - cadre membership - and the Central Committee is elected only once in three years, not like the P.A.P. Ours is once in two years. We meet regularly bi-annually. His is once in three years. And the Rules of the Party are such that nobody can capture it without his consent. [Laughter] It shows him to be an extremely experienced man. They fixed him in 1957; we got him unfixed. That was our misfortune, we trusted him. So we bear the cross. But they are not going to fix him again. He does not want them running around fixing him. We know that; he knows that. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has no great affection for me. We fought many a battle; temperamentally and ideologically, we are poles apart. But can he afford to face his own supporters and say he let the country down and not the Government down? It is no longer a question of the P.A.P. Government. Everybody knows that it is a question of either merger and survival or chaos, trials and tribulations before ultimate merger. Do we avoid the trials and the tribulations? That is the issue. And every vote against the Government is a vote for the trials and tribulations. That is what it amounts to. I say that there is no need for us to try and go round and lobby in order to foist ourselves with responsibilities. The responsibility is there. If any Member on the other side gets 26 to vote us out, constitutionally we are discharged. Sir, let me explain the other ways in which we feel we have discharged our sacred duty. I say this hesitantly, in case it is believed that we are immodest. But very few men in Singapore and few women at that, Mr Speaker, Sir, would have taken it upon themselves to dig their toes in the face of everything that the Communists could throw at us. The easier way was to play their game and cover up, push along, improvise and carry on the idea of peace for our time, but disaster for the country, while they built up more and more ramifications to undermine the State. We never allowed that, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now, for the first time, the issue is solemnly and clearly posed to the people. This is no humbug. "Bogey," says the Member for Queenstown. Is Chin Peng a bogey; is he a ghost? I do not know if the Member for Queenstown looks up the meaning of these words. I do not think Chin Peng is a bogey. He is real.

Not something you can see, is it?

We do not let these chaps make us lose sleep, Sir, I can assure the Member for Queenstown that I sleep well at nights. I take regular exercise and I am fighting fit. For it is my job to discharge these responsibilities and nobody is going to get us away from it. And Chin Peng or Ching Siong, Sir - I read in the papers today and I thought it read rather well. Is he a bogey? He is real. We know him for so many years.

He is a nice chap.

He is a nice chap. More the pity of it! Gone the wrong way, on the wrong side! But what can we do? Does it mean therefore that we yield, we surrender, just because some of them are nice chaps? But some of them are ruthless chaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us make no mistake about that. I say that the sacred duty was discharged by baring the facts to the people and carrying the fight into the open. We could have concealed the fight, covered up the tracks, carried on for five years, and for five years more. Sir, we are better able to give the Communists a respectable cover. One of the greatest misfortunes of the Member for Queenstown is that he has a sense of humour and every time he goes into his long and lengthy tirades, at the end of it all, the utter silliness and stupidity and comicality of it all strikes him, and he bursts into uncontrollable laughter. He has got an engaging characteristic. He plays his role, difficult though it may be. He rants, he gets angry; he puts on the act. All these lengthy pages - he does not speak in those words and phrases. Those are words and phrases that the Member for Thomson read out yesterday - the words of revolution, anger of the people, turn to other alternatives, traitors. But at the end of it all, the silliness of it strikes the Member for Queenstown, and he is in a fit of merriment.

You act very well.

We have done our duty by baring this. The fight now moves into a new phase. That is our sacred duty - to carry it into the new phase without allowing the harmony that now exists between the people to be cracked. Because once that is cracked, it will never be put together again. They know it. Well. Mr Speaker, Sir, I say therefore that the first sacred duty to the people was to ensure the permanent security and prosperity of Singapore, which is only possible in a merger with the Federation. Any other way meant isolation, meant playing to the Communists. It is they who want Singapore to remain a colony. Full internal self-government, abolish the Security Council - they will be quite happy. Because then the common enemy is there - British colonialism - and all those who fight like them are anti-colonialists; whether you are fighting for a Communist cause or a non-Communist cause, you are together, you must be, because the common enemy is colonialism. So they want colonialism for their purpose. Their logic is simple, because without the British, the Member for Havelock becomes an aider and abettor of the Communist movement. With the British, the Member for Havelock is an active fighter of anti-colonial revolution. But how can he be an active fighter of anti-colonial revolution if the colonialists are gone? That is the simple logic. It is not only his bosses who can think these things out; so can others. That is why they have a vested interest in colonialism. There is a word to be made use of in order that they can expand on a broad front, absorb all classes, and using the words of the Member for Thomson's resolution yesterday, Sir - workers, students, rural dwellers. If you use a simple word like "peasants", it is too reminiscent of the great lines of workers and peasants of China; so that is a bit tricky. So do not use such words; change to "rural dwellers". They only forgot the grave-diggers, Sir. They represent all classes, including the grave-diggers. Now, Sir, what therefore is the significance of this amendment? The significance is this, that in the opinion of the Member for Cairnhill, that is the only way to deal with the Communists. We disagree. But we say quite clearly that that is one of the ways in which the Communists have been dealt with. I have said all this before. The Member for Thomson always quotes little bits that suit him; he never quotes the bits that do not suit him, made on the same occasion. That all these methods of "containment" are of no value, unless the general situation is kept out of it. It is like a sick man in a community. It is no use having a quarantine station for people with tuberculosis unless the general health of your population is good. Then you quarantine those that carry the virus and you keep those who are healthy, healthy. But when your general standard of health is down because of poverty, malnutrition and bad housing, you cannot quarantine the whole nation. That is the point we make. Let me say this: a quarantine is a valuable method of containing the virus and from time to time, regrettable though it may be, it would be necessary-

To get a vaccine.

True, I am reminded by my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister that in the quarantine, we produce an anti-toxin which is another necessary aspect of this whole process. Now, Sir, our first duty is to keep the population healthy. That we will secure through economic expansion and prosperity; otherwise I say it is a waste of time trying to do this. You will have to quarantine finally the whole of Singapore. With growing unemployment, no economic expansion, frustration, and bitterness, the basis will disappear and the whole thing will go in a turbulent, and riotous and chaotic mess. But when we have ensured that standards will be kept up, progress will be made, nutrition is forthcoming, and better and better houses, better and better schools, more and more factories, more and more jobs with better and better wages, then we isolate those who are unhealthy. Of course, we will try and bring them back to health, Mr Speaker, Sir, We will feed them, look after them-

And inject them.

Yes. We will try our best, Mr Speaker, Sir. All the known vaccines will be tried; all the latest in antibiotics. Sir, when we took office - although these men fought against us to fix us and they fixed the Member for Hong Lim they were in Changi Prison, Mr Speaker, Sir, and we transferred them to St. John's Island where they could get the sea breeze and open air-sports, basket ball, night reading, and even swimming! And I say - I do not claim credit for that, but that is our humanity; we tried to do something for them. And many of them have been rehabilitated, recovered in health, reacquired their balance, their ideological serenity restored, and they have been released. And so the process goes on. But it must be in a contained situation. The general situation must first be firm, solid and healthy, and then it is possible to deal with those infected. Those infected would have to be dealt with. I mean, let us be quite brutal and frank about these things. They are unpleasant things, Mr Speaker, Sir. For instance, but for them, I think the Member for Queenstown, despite all his personal aberrations from time to time, will still be quite a reasonable fellow. But they infected him with something, that inspired and aroused tremendous hopes,-

You have sold out the rights of Singapore.

-aspirations, ambitions, and he went careering back. He went back true to form, what they call recidivist tendencies, Mr Speaker, Sir. He has always had a hankering for games of chance. He is one of the great names in some of the clubs in Singapore He is a man who takes chances, a brave man. He has been-

What has this got to do with the motion, Sir?

I do not think it has anything to do with the motion.

It has.

Has it?

I was explaining how to a certain extent I agreed with the Member for Cairnhill, and that is, in some cases, a sacred duty to prevent people from being enticed into games of chance, which is exactly what is happening in his case. He went back, true to form - put everything he had on this mad gamble - this time for absolute power. We wanted to give up after Hong Lim. He was encouraged by certain elements whom I will not mention, but everybody knows, and the bid was made. And now this mad venture has started. Well, Sir, to that extent, I agree with the Member for Cairnhill. But I disagree with him utterly and completely that this is the basic remedy. I say this is the way to contain it, but the final solution - the long-term and enduring answer - is economic progress. I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill has read Rostow on "Economic Growth" and a few others. Well, they explain how these things take place. You get off into a stage of industrialisation like an aeroplane taking off from an aerodrome. And that is what we must do once we take off. In no country in the civilised and industrialised world have the Communist Party been able to assume power when there has been a high rate of economic growth. They have assumed power only when there has been no economic growth, when tomorrow is worse than today and the day after tomorrow is worse than tomorrow; then despair sets in. Therefore, I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, very far from not having discharged our duty, we have right up to date discharged to the best of our ability what we consider and what we know to be in the long-term interests of the people of Singapore. First, to ensure our economic well-being in a larger federation. An hon. Member: Malaysia.

In Malaya and in Malaysia. Then with a healthy economy, merger and Malaysia will sustain its growth. I give this example again to Members on the Opposition side, and I think this will be appreciated particularly by the Member for Nee Soon because he understands it. If a man has something to live for - if today he has a bicycle and is earning enough, feeding his family in nice and decent surroundings, and with enough to buy a scooter on the hire purchase - from the bicycle he goes to the scooter - that is tangible progress. And he would not listen to all this wild and silly talk of revolution and violence. And if from the scooter he is doing well enough to go to one of the Mini-minor cars - there is the 500, the 600, the Mini-Cooper which is revved up and can do 100 m.p.h. - he can take a girl friend out for a spin, that is reasonable and tolerable. After all, that is what they are fighting for even in a Communist society and even in Moscow. Now that they have got the industrial take off, they give tremendous cheers to jazz music.

Nylon stockings, too.

And all the best things in life. And if from the scooter to the small car, they can, like the Member for Thomson, go on to a bigger car-

The Member for Nee Soon.

The Member for Nee Soon, I beg his pardon - Opel Rekord, two-tone, adds to the glamour of it all, An hon. Member: White-wall tyres.

White-wall tyres. Now, Sir, there is then no frustration. But if the Member for Nee Soon has not got white-wall tyres, if last year, his Renault fell to bits and he had to go back to a scooter and then this year from the scooter he goes down to the bicycle, we will now find a different Member for Nee Soon. Right at the moment he is a man at peace with himself, but, mind you, a bit fearful of the hazards of the outer world. But nevertheless, as I told him publicly, he is not a man who is either by inclination or by circumstances to be forced into violent action. And he assured me that there will be no violent action whatsoever, and I accept his assurance. I have no doubts whatsoever, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if you can go from a Renault to an Opel Rekord - and with easy small numbers - then I say there is hope. I do not speak in disparaging terms. I say that is the business of society - incentives. People live in this world for fulfilment of themselves, be it a game of chance whether at the table or in the larger field of politics, be it an expression of their alter ego - whatever it is - there must be some consummation in life. I am told, Sir, there is nothing more frustrating than to be a spinster all one's life. I am quite sure that is what happens when a population goes down; when bicycles stay as bicycles. Worse, you go on foot and shoes get worse and you go to sandals. If that happens, then frustration sets in. But where there is no frustration, when there is freedom and liberty of movement, speech, expression, personal enjoyment of one's likes and dislikes, so long as it does not affect the community at large, then there is no violent upheaval. There is no manning of the barricades. They tried it, Sir, several times in the last one year. First, the unions and then the People's Association. All flopped. We left them alone. They were doing things sometimes which were unlawful; for instance, like putting up tents. We did not mind. Is it our sacred duty to lock these chaps up? They were just stooges in the game. I say no. It is not the purpose of it. Focus it on the main actors, These are the minor parts being played by the minor people. They are the supporting cast. Leave them alone. The Work Brigade flopped. Why? If there was what they called in Marxist terminology the pre-conditions of revolution, conditions of despair where the Government is unable to resolve them, people have no confidence that the Government can resolve it, or worse, the Government knows it cannot resolve it, then you have the people ready to man barricades. And they have not got it. They tried it with the Chinese Secondary IV boycott examinations. A happy population, reasonably content - I am not saying that they are ideal conditions - but sufficiently good to hold an expectation of better for tomorrow. The parents swept aside the petty little dictators who tried to prevent their fellow students from taking the examinations. But they went in to take the examinations, without police intervention. They called for another strike of students recently to stop the Commission of Inquiry. Is that a bogey? What is happening causes a great deal of embarrassment. Everyday they see this with discomfort. Every Barisan issue has long scurrilous tirades on the Commission of Inquiry which they supported in this House. How does the Member for Queenstown explain all this? He supported the Commission of Inquiry. Now he is throwing the spotlight on what is going on. It is like switching on. I do not know, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Member for Queenstown has ever tried this. You put your foot into a machine - I am sure he has put it on the chest. I have tried it with my shoes. You go to a shoe shop. You put your foot on it. You switch on the button and you can see the bones of your foot. That is what has happened. They want a Commission of Inquiry. The X-ray is put on by popular request. I say here, too, by popular request we leave it to the Opposition. If they say this is what is right, then we will convey this to the proper authorities. This is a directive to the final authority for security in Singapore. We shall convey it. But as far as we, as the Government, are concerned, our duty has been discharged in assuring long-term security, long-term prosperity, for there is no alternative to that. Otherwise short-term from time to time. The quarantine method is useless in a healthy society. If Members on the other side believe that the quarantine should be used right now, then let the Opposition so decide. 8.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just witnessed the Prime Minister repeating the same old record of "Communist, Communist, Communist." He thinks that he is still behind the microphone in Radio P.A.P. But he will not dare to speak this in front of a crowd. He will not dare to face the people of Singapore.

Do not make that mistake!

He talks a lot about how to restrain the Communist menace, security and all that. He says that-

Sir, on a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh remained standing.

The Member will not give way.

He wants to give way, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Order. I think the Member for Queenstown should make up his mind. Is he giving way?

He has spoken for about two hours, Sir, I think it is time that he gave me a bit of the time.

One hour and twenty minutes.

He said that it was his thesis. I do not know whether he developed his thesis. All this has been written in the reactionary books for umpteen years-

What reactionary books? Let me see.

Order.

He talked of the necessary phase. Since when has he ever come into this so-called necessary phase? I believe, Sir, all that he has brought forward came from the U.S.I.S.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. It would be appropriate, I must-

Order. We cannot have two Members standing up. Is it a point of order, or is it a point of elucidation? I think the Prime Minister must be honest with himself.

I leave it to you to decide.

Order. I want to know whether it is a point of order or a point of elucidation. The Prime Minister must be honest with himself.

Sir, you ask me to be honest with myself. As far as I am concerned, it is a point of elucidation but it is so big that it becomes a point of order!

There is no such thing in parliamentary practice! Dr Lee.

The U.S.I.S. sends books and information to everybody, and, of course, the Prime Minister has first-hand knowledge since he has talked so much about the Marshall Plan and how the Marshall Plan helped to revive and resuscitate Western Europe. I do not know. He might be a second Mr David Marshall for all I know. An hon. Member: The Member for Anson?

Sir, the Prime Minister started talking about how Communism wanted to attack Europe after the Second World War. He was relating how the Marshall Plan rejuvenated Europe because it brought economic prosperity, so much so that they now have this Economic Community of Europe and the United Kingdom is even trying to join it. But talking of this, he missed the most basic and fundamental - his usual pet words, "basic and fundamental" - reason why and how such poverty came about. I am sure that since he has been relating about words of Marx and how the Communists used words, he must know the basic analysis of poverty. How it came about-

How it came about? You tell me.

Order.

Sir, in days of old, the Prime Minister-

Order. It is half-past eight. I suspend the sitting until half-past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

The Original Question was, "That this House expresses no confidence in the Government." Since which an amendment has been moved, at the end, to add: "in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to take very long because I realise there is a guillotine on this and we still have to go back to the main motion. But I, of course, realise why our Prime Minister was giving a long thesis. He had hoped to stall in order that we might not be able to debate our main motion. Of course, it is possible, now that there is talk of his going to the United Nations, that he wants to make some political capital out of this before going. As everybody knows, whoever wants to go to the United States must first proclaim himself as a big anti-Communist, otherwise he might not get a good reception there. And the United Nations are situated in the United States.

On a point of explanation, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir. Time is rather short. Of course, I know that the Prime Minister had hoped for a chance to replace maybe Chiang Kai-shek.

Order. The hon. Member for Queenstown has drawn the attention of this House to the fact that there is a guillotine. He seems to be completely irrelevant. He has lost, I think, according to my reckoning, two minutes speaking irrelevantly.

No, Sir, I do not intend to be irrelevant except to say that what we said of the possibility of the Prime Minister being the United Nations representative for the Federation is not completely untrue. Sir, the amendment by the Member for Cairnhill to my mind is very dishonest. I think this is one of his usual double talk somersaults. It is very clear that the S.P.A. want to support the P.A.P. but dare not do so openly. I can quote the instance of the S.P.A. objecting very strongly to clause 29 of the Referendum Bill in Select Committee but on recommittal abstaining instead of really supporting, and so indirectly supporting the P.A.P. I can say this to the Member for Cairnhill: that when we moved this motion of no confidence in the Government, there was no intention whatsoever to discredit the S.P.A. as he had thought. You can read the words of the motion and it says, "no confidence in the P.A.P. Government". Therefore, if the SPA. agree with us, namely, that they have no confidence in the P.A.P. Government, whatever the reason may be, they still can join us in voting against the P.A.P. But the reason given by the S.P.A. cannot be acceptable to us because the amendment only falls into the trap of the P.A.P. and allow them an excuse to use dictatorial methods against any organisation that is P.A.P. As you know, Sir, at the present moment, there are a lot of people in Singapore who are against the dishonest referendum and against the sell-out of the P.A.P., and therefore they combine together to take concerted action against the P.A.P. And since these organisations put up effective opposition to the P.A.P., the obvious line left for the Government is to smear these organisations as so called Communist and Communist front organisations. I hope, therefore, that the S.P.A., if they are really sincere and honest and if they really think that the P.A.P. are no good and should not have the confidence of the people, will support our amendment instead. But it is curious that although the S.P.A. agree with us that they have no confidence in the P.A.P. Government, yet they turned round to attack the mover of the original motion instead. This is one of those somersaults typical of the Member of Cairnhill and, I, suppose, this is the result of his experience as a politician for the past 12 years. This is no surprise to us, Sir. Of course, as we have seen all along, the S.P.A. tactics have been to embarrass the P.A.P. and at the same time, to join the P.A.P. in smearing the Barisan Sosialis. I do not know what the Member for Cairnhill hopes to get out of this. But-

Another Tun!

I do not know, maybe a double bar; but if the S.P.A. really are sincere and agree with us that they have no confidence in the P.A.P. Government, then when it comes to voting, let them join us in voting against the P.A.P. Government.

Sir, I speak on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, namely, to add to the original motion the words "in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore". Sir, I think we should first attempt a definition of some of the terms used in the amendment. First, the words "sacred duty", that is, the sacred duty of the Government is to protect the internal security of Singapore. I do not think this duty is sacred. I think it is the normal duty of any government to see that law and order is maintained. There is nothing sacrosanct in any government performing that sort of function. Then the method of maintaining or protecting the internal security of Singapore, according to the Member for Cairnhill, is to restrain the known Communists. What does the word "restraint" mean? Members will know that every time the Member for Cairnhill speaks on the subject of dealing with the Communists, he recommends only one method, and he puts it into several ways - put them in a place where they can do no harm. Now he used the word "restrain", when all he meant is to arrest them, put them in Changi Gaol, put them out of circulation. That is the meaning of the amendment.

Correct.

The Member for Cairnhill says "Correct". Sir, it is a very strange thing that one section of the Opposition should ask us to lock up the Members of the Opposition, while the Opposition that is supposed to be the target of security action constantly calls us Fascists. One or the other must be wrong. There is a contradiction here. If we are Fascists, then it is quite unnecessary for the Member for Cairnhill to urge us on this course of action. We would have done it long ago. Of course, the Fascists not only restrain the people, they not only lock them up in prison, but suddenly you find prisoners completely disappearing and no trace of them is found. So, Sir, it is obvious that when the Barisan Members, particularly the Member for Queenstown, accuse us of Fascism, they do not know what Fascism means and they do not know what the Fascists would do to people like him. Sir, why cannot the Government agree with this amendment? The Member for Cairnhill is always instigating us to lock up the Communists and their fellow travellers. We can understand this easily, because that was the way he dealt with them in the past. This is the method which he thinks will solve the problem. I could perhaps mention that it is not only the S.P.A. Members who think that we should do it. I recollect the rather hilarious occasion when one of the Barisan Sosialis leaders, Mr Woodhull, and I were having a conversation in the C.P.A. Room. We talked about how democratic the P.A.P. is, how we believed in allowing the Barisan Sosialis all the opportunities to propagate their views, and he said, "Come off it! Come off it! You surely do not mean that'?" Well, the long and short of it is that it ended in an uproar, and he said, "Why don't you lock us up? You have got no guts. Tun Lim Yew Hock at least had the courage of his convictions and he proceeded to massacre the Communists and their sympathisers when he thought he had to do it." He thought we should do the same thing, and the only reason why we did not act in this manner is that we lacked the courage. Sir, that is a point of view which I think we must dispute. People can point to the various shortcomings of the P.A.P. Some may be right, others are not, but I do not think that lack of courage can be one of our shortcomings. If we desist from taking security action against the Communists, the reason is not that we lack the courage to do it. The reason is that in the present situation there are far better and more effective ways of dealing with them. Sir, as you know, there is a saying which goes, there are more ways of killing a cat than just drowning it in cream. In the present situation in Singapore, our stand is that so far as the Communist threat is concerned, we have never attempted on any occasion to minimise it. So far as this threat is concerned, direct security action against them, blocking them up, putting them away in Changi Gaol is not the correct way, for various reasons. The most obvious is that the Singapore Government is not the ultimate authority on this matter. The ultimate power rests with the internal Security Council in which the Singapore Government has minority representation. Therefore, if we were to assume powers which we do not really have, the Government could easily, and I believe quite rightly, be charged with taking action on behalf of some other interests, not necessarily the interests of Singapore. But there is a more fundamental and more basic reason why the game cannot be played in this way.

Do not filibuster. There is no time.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown believes that filibustering is the sole prerogative of himself and his Members. I am trying to develop a serious theme in which one line of action has been recommended to the Government. True, if we were to accept this line of action

Come to the point on the main issue.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown is a person who always raises his hands in anger when there is any attempt to curb freedom of speech. There you are.

Order. I think I have already told the Member for Queenstown and the Barisan Sosialis that if they keep interjecting I cannot stop the person who is speaking from replying to the interjection and taking up time. I think the Minister for Finance is quite in order in answering this amendment which has been proposed. Dr Goh.

Sir, as I was saying, there is a more basic and important reason why resort to the use of knife must be refrained from. This really stems from the nature of the Communist threat itself - the very nature of the movement, the system of the organisation, and the way they attempt to manipulate persons and organisations in our society to advance their own long-term political interests. May I explain what I mean by the nature of the Communist threat in our present society so that it will be quite clear that once the real nature of the threat is recognised and is known, then the unwisdom of taking the course of action recommended in this amendment would be apparent to all? On several occasions, when we on the Government side drew attention to Communist activities, Communist agitation among students, the trade unions, penetration of political Parties like the Barisan Sosialis and so forth, the reply always thrown back at us was, how many known Communists? The last known estimate was 300. And they said, "How can 300 men be so dangerous to society?" Some of the persons who make the statement honestly believe that 300 Communists pose no threat to 1,700,000 people. They say all this repetition, emphasis on the Communist threat is a red bogey; I mean they believe that it is a red bogey, that 300 people cannot possibly be any danger to society. But there are others who are fully aware of what the real situation is and join the chorus, thereby hoping to save themselves from embarrassing attention. Sir, the Communist Party as a political force in any society is always a minority group. The Communist Party is not like a football club or a turf club which wants to recruit more and more members. That has never been the way in which the Communist Party operate and the way they operate in Singapore. The Communist Party is a leadership elite. They themselves in their own literature consider themselves as a Marxist-Leninist combat party, the vanguard of the proletariat revolution. And a member of the Communist Party is a full-time dedicated professional revolutionary, nothing more than that and nothing less than that. If we want to find an equivalent in our society to this full-time dedicated revolutionary professional, the nearest analogy we can find is that of a Catholic priest, equally dedicated to the faith. They are even better indoctrinated in the school of theology and they organise themselves into a disciplined hierarchy. Supposing you have in Singapore 300 Catholic priests I do not know whether we have that number here, Mr Speaker - but supposing you do, then they can extend their influence; one priest can extend his influence over a herd. What is the term they call it, Sir? An hon. Member: The diocese.

The diocese. Yes, he is the shepherd and one of them can bring several hundreds, or thousands. When we have 300 Catholic priests, I say you have a very powerful force.

On a point of order, Sir, Is all this relevant, Sir?

I understood the Minister for Finance to be drawing an analogy between a Roman Catholic priest and a Communist.

Sir, this is immediate and direct because I say that you cannot understand the threat posed to our society by the Communist movement unless you understand the nature of the movement, the manner in which it is organised and the type of men that run these various organs. Sir, the full-time cadre is distinct from amateurs and occasional misfits which they collect now and then into the movement, misfits like the Member for Queenstown, for instance. The full-time cadre knows what he wants. He is schooled in the ideology of Marxism and Leninism. He is trained; years of training go into the upbringing of a cadre. In Singapore, for instance, in Malaya, for that matter, the prospective cadre is not just given an entry form; then he signs, pays two dollars and joins the movement. He is selected, he starts in a primary school, nurtured and-

Order. I think now I must stop the Minister for Finance. I think he is going into too many details. We do not want to hear how a Communist cadre is nurtured from childhood. Let us come to this amendment itself.

So, Sir, I think we will accept this proposition and I will not expand upon it any further since you say sufficient attention has been paid to it. We accept this proposition that the operator is a person of very high calibre. Now, I want to describe how they set about their work. So far I have been speaking about general propositions, but I think we can confine ourselves to Singapore because the subject of the motion is the threat of the Communist movement in Singapore. Sir, if you have lots of these people around the place, each knowing that his job is to advance the revolution, each school trained in techniques of operation, then what do they do? Mr Speaker, Sir, they do not go to work and earn an income, get married, advance in life, climb up the social ladder, accumulate wealth and so on. They do not do that.

They join the Barisan Sosialis.

Among other things, Sir, they penetrate and capture organisations. Sir, it is an extraordinary fact that in almost all organisations, that is, all associations of men, an active minority can always capture power. It is so in trade unions, it is so possibly, for all I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, in professional bodies that people who are prepared to do the work and be nominated to committees can always be elected. I do not know why it is so. It may be that it is some inherent lethargy in mankind, some aversion from doing committee work. The fact remains that given this lethargy or indifference or unwillingness to provide leadership, of being elected to membership of committees and running an organisation, an active minority always wins, always captures. Therefore, we have in Singapore large numbers of organisations and associations in key fields of human activities which are easy to penetrate, easy to capture, and in fact have been penetrated and have been captured. In Singapore, Sir, we know what these associations are, who they are. They are the famous trade unions of the S.A.T.U. group, the Old Boys' Associations, the Rural Dwellers Association, the Country People's Association, one group of the Hawkers' Union. These are the associations that have been penetrated and are being used for united front purposes. The average man may say, what is the paint of doing all these things? Why do a small group - there are not many, just a few hundred, and they are energetic young men do - these things? What purpose does it serve? I will give a very simple and clear example of the tremendous value and importance which a group of persons can get from penetrating and capturing these organisations. Take the Referendum Bill. There was a Select Committee on it of which you, Mr Speaker, were the Chairman. You no doubt were fully aware not only of the contents of the memoranda sent by these associations, but you even met some of the honourable gentlemen who purport to have written these memoranda. Sir, on an important issue such as the Referendum Bill, a basic important national issue of the utmost importance, we find a group of just a few hundred persons running around. Having already got these organisations under their control, they set out long memoranda attacking the Government on a stand which they knew would be against the interests of the Communists and their open front organisations. Now, that happened and we have here the Member for Thomson who proclaimed, "These are persons who represented only one hundred thousand people or two hundred thousand," I forgot the exact figure. A hundred thousand, but in fact just a few hundred energetic young men and women who have done this job. Now, on the one side, this is what a determined anti active minority of people are doing, presenting forcefully their point of view. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It is highly commendable provided the motives are honest and the representation is honest. Well, they have put their point of view. Now, what of the real view of the vast majority?

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, on today's motion we have a guillotine at 12 midnight and it seems that the Minister and the Government Benches are filibustering so that the Opposition have no chance to speak on the original motion.

I was watching the position very carefully. I think the Minister for Finance is, in fact, going much too far away from the amendment. The amendment charges the Government for having failed to discharge its - sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations. All he is doing now is to say that, in fact, they are manipulating and controlling organisations. Having said that, I think that is enough and he should not go into further details. He should now come to the point and answer the charge as to why these communist and communist-front leaders have not been restrained. Dr Goh.

What I was saying is of the essence of the argument. It is not sufficient, I think, to say that they are controlling organisations. What is important is to demonstrate how they do it and why they do it. Otherwise, how can we ever put across the view that, taking into account the whole modus operandi of these groups, it is not in the interests of Singapore and to the advantage of the people of Singapore to lock them up; it is not in our interests to carry out the policy recommended by the Member for Cairnhill. Now, I was comparing what an active minority could do in capturing associations presenting forcefully their point of view as against an inert large minority, which has an opinion of its own no doubt, but are either incapable of organising themselves into a cohesive and vocal organisation or are unwilling to do so. And I say, so long as the majority of people, either through laziness or through ignorance, remain indifferent to what is going on around them, then I say to take the action recommended by the Member for Cairnhill is quite wrong. Put it this way. Can I explain the proposition this way? Supposing we do this; these birds disappear, then everyone - the majority of people - will breathe a sigh of relief. Then they fall back on the old former state of indolence. Does it help the situation, Mr Speaker? Does it really help? Now, if by locking up these birds you can remove the threat once and for all, then perhaps the Member for Cairnhill may have his point, but I say this, that does not happen. Remove them - the top leaders, the top echelon, all known open front leaders - they disappear, you may have peace and quiet for two years, three years, four years; then the whole process will start again, because this whole movement is based on an ideology and ideas; because it is a revolutionary and real political force; it has its own methods of drawing on new people to replace those that have been put away, and you solve nothing at all. On the other hand, by so doing, you give the majority - the inert majority - a false sense of security for a few years at the end of which new crises will develop. They will be jolted into a new feeling of danger; they may bestir themselves perhaps for a few months, a year or two. Something has gone wrong; but they will not know what to do about it; they will be running around frightening others. Then the demand may come from some to stage another lock-up. So this can go on ad infinitum and it does not solve the basic problem. Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the correct way of dealing with the situation? I say the correct way is the way we are doing. An hon. Member: Is that so?

Precisely. Matching them move for move, manoeuvres for manoeuvre. Finally, they find themselves in a zugzwang. And this is important because we have matched their manoeuvres correctly. Coming back to the point of developing hundreds of cadres penetrating and controlling associations of various types so that all can work together in a united front. Now, the whole purpose of this is to mount excitement not only among members of these organisations but in the general population. Have a feeling of excitement, of tension, of crisis. Do so by attacking an enemy whom you present as utterly wicked, utterly renegade, utterly traitorous, Fascist; in other words, choose the enemy, in this instance, the P.A.P. Government, call them all sorts of names, mount hatred among the people, and tension will rise. If they succeed, more and more people will rally round to their banner, more and more bitterness will be felt against the Government until the point of explosion is reached. Sir, in Singapore we have seen how the Communists, through agitation by united front tactics, were able on several occasions in the past to bring about just this critical situation. They got not merely their own immediate followers but the general population, or the majority of the general population, with them. 1955, 1956, 1957, or 1958 - three, four times - An hon. Member: 1957.

It was not merely the few hundred energetic, well-trained disciplined cadres who caused the security problem, because a few hundred people cannot do anything, but it is because these few hundred people had thousands of other people on their side that they posed a threat to security, and they were able to do that because they had out-manoeuvred the government of the day; they were able to get the majority of people in a state of excitement and tension. Sir, since more than a year ago the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis were attempting just this and no more - a repetition of what they succeeded in doing in 1955, 1956 and 1957. Sir, I would not weary you with all the details but merely refer to the several attempts they made to create trouble just mentioned - the episodes of the People's Association, the Work Brigade, the middle school examination boycott, strikes, this, that and the other, the last one, you know, polling in Tanjong Pagar - each one we met them blow for blow, round by round, and I say we did not go under, they did not get the better of us.

Do not filibuster.

Sir, how can the Member for Queenstown say I am filibustering? I mean just because these blows hurt him. It is very relevant to the issue. Did he not listen to the last sentences I was saying? Did he not listen when I said that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis were mounting all this campaign of agitation against us, and I itemised them one by one? How can you say it is filibustering? Sir, the way to meet them is not to get rattled when these challenges come up but to meet them as and when they come up, deal with each issue, resolve them, meet them with patience, with benevolence even. Where firm measures are required, firm measures should be taken. Where flexible and reasonable methods are required, flexible and reasonable methods should be used. The net result is that over all these months of agitation or penetration or manipulation, running around in circles, they got nowhere. Nobody is excited. There is no feeling of tension in the city, although the Barisan Sosialis pretends that there is. Of course, this goes on. We are prepared to meet them, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have already had Round 7. The Member for Thomson says the final round will kayo us. That will not happen, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in Singapore the political scene is rather sensitive and vulnerable, much more so than in other societies. Put it this way, Mr Speaker, Sir. Perhaps I will explain it in this way. I will make the point which I want to make, more vividly if I were to relate a conversation I had [Interruption] - I beg your pardon?

Order. I must ask the Minister for Finance now to wind up his speech. He has already taken three-quarters of an hour.

Sir, I just want to make this last point, and that is in the political field in Singapore we are more vulnerable to the assaults of minorities - active minorities - than other societies are. I want to develop this point in a rather vivid way. I have been trying several ways to present this fact, to put this point across. I think the best way would be to relate what some Japanese civil servants told me when I went there the first time. They were asking about the Singapore Government, who were the Ministers and so on. They asked, "Who is the Minister for Home Affairs? How old is he?" They thought I was the youngest Minister in the Cabinet. I said, "No, no, actually I am one of the oldest." "How could it be? How old is your Home Minister?" I said he has not reached the age of 30 yet, and they were absolutely appalled. I mean, they say this thing cannot happen. Their Ministers are 60 plus and 70 plus. The fact that in Singapore here you have - mind you, I am not saying there is any demerit in being young, far from it - a very youthful Cabinet points to the fact that there is something wrong somewhere. This sort of thing does not happen in normal societies. I mean, you take the age of Cabinet Ministers in any well ordered society, and it is usually 60 plus.

Has age got anything to do with restraining Communist or Communist-front leaders?

I want to make this point without further embellishment. Singapore society is usually vulnerable to active minorities. In Singapore, with rapid political changes, it has always been the younger people who, being more bold and more rash than their elders, are prepared to put down their stake and make their bid for power. An hon. Member: Like the Member for Queenstown.

There are several reasons why this is so. I see the Member for Hong Lim glowering at me, so I will not go into these reasons, but if you, Mr Speaker, Sir, will just give me two minutes more. The reason is that there is no traditional leadership in this country. There is traditional leadership in the Federation among the Malay population. Therefore, it is not possible for energetic minorities to penetrate organisations by united front tactics to capture power. But in Singapore, there is no traditional leadership. After all, Mr Speaker, Sir, 150 years ago there were only 300 persons in Singapore - mostly fishermen or pirates - and people have been coming in without any traditional leadership as it is understood in societies with a long history. This poses for us rather acute problems. How can you maintain political stability in a situation where there is no traditional leadership, where an active minority can quite easily win political power through fair and democratic means; active and well-organised minorities like the Malayan Communist Party which is the most active, the best disciplined, has the longest history, the toughest, and, from all accounts, persons to be reckoned with? But I say, for reasons which I have dealt with at some length, at this stage of our historical development, to wade into them in the manner prescribed and recommended by the Member for Cairnhill would be a grave error. We say it is always better to match them blow for blow in the hope, in the expectation indeed, that more and more people will understand the real meaning of what is going on. When you get more and more people understanding the real situation, then I say we will be in a position to face the assault of this minority group, however active they can be, however dedicated they can be. We can meet them, in the words of Mao Tse-tung "with ease and poise".

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, there is no need to filibuster because there will not be much of Opposition news in the newspapers anyhow. Sir, we are still debating on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. I oppose the amendment because it does not state sufficiently the reasons why this House should express no confidence in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the main reason why I support the original motion is that it is different from the Member for Cairnhill's amendment.

You are scared of us, that is why.

My reason is that today this Government is a minority Government.

On a point of Order, Sir.

I think the Member for Hong Lim must be patient. We are now dealing with the amendment. Let us complete the debate on the amendment. If there is no other Member on the Opposition side who wishes to speak on the amendment, I propose that we put the Question.

The amendment moved by the S.P.A. serves only to sidetrack the issue, which is whether this Government is morally fit and competent to govern at this moment, because it is a minority government. In the past week we have tipped the scales. Today we on this side of the House have 26 Members and there are only 25 on the other side.

Order. This must come on the main motion. We are now debating the amendment which deals with the Communist threat, the restraining of Communist and Communist-front leaders. I am trying to bring that to a conclusion. Mr Ong Eng Guan, anything further to say?

I have nothing else to say.

On the amendment, Mr Rajah?

On the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for having made our task somewhat easier in the moving of this amendment. If we are to bring home our amendment to the House, we would, first of all have to show that there are Communist and Communist-front leaders who are manipulating and controlling organisations. That is the primary base from which there could have been any possibility for us, from this side of the House, to convince the whole of the House that there is merit in our amendment. Fortunately for us, and also from the point of view of the Member for Hong Lim, because he now can talk more on the main motion, the Government has made it easier for all of us by accepting the fact that there are Communist and Communist-front leaders who are, in fact, manipulating and controlling organisations. Mr Speaker, we on the Front-benches here have been in the Opposition for the last three years. This is not a novel point we are propounding today. We have been propounding it for the last three years. We have been propounding it on every single occasion. Whenever we have thought it is necessary to tell the Government of this threat and of their duty to do something about it, we have always raised it. The threat that existed three years ago has continued to exist and still exists today. I can point in the Prime Minister's argument that, in his view, the restraining and the incarceration of Communist leaders or Communist-front leaders, instead of containing the problem that affects Singapore, might make it worse. That is a point of view which is worthy of respect. It is a matter of opinion. Perhaps the Prime Minister may be right. Who should know the Communists better than the Prime Minister himself? He has admitted it. The position up to the time when merger was in the offing was different, I am submitting to the Government, from what it is today. One could argue, and the Government could reasonably argue, that before merger, politics were somewhat clouded and were not on a proper footing. We had not got down to the level of national issues, and therefore the arresting of Communist or Communist-front leaders might have been misinterpreted into meaning the arrest of opponents who have been dubbed as Communists or Communist-front leaders, and thereby bringing discredit on the Government. That is a possibility and one respects that point of view. But today the position is quite different. The position today is this; the Opposition, the Government have all united, and even the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker, Sir. The most important thing for Singapore is the question of merger. We have different ideas of how we should merge, and possibly when we should merge. But we are all agreed - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party and us - that merger is important and that Singapore cannot survive without it, and the sooner we get on with it the better. Therefore, I put this point in all seriousness. If anybody - be he a Communist, be he a Fascist, be he some foreigner - does something with malicious intent to wreck merger, then that person should be put away. He should be temporarily kept aside. Today we have reached the position where we have now before us a united national issue. And as on this issue we are united, and when I say "we" I mean we as an Assembly, the Government in advising the Assembly has a sacred duty to advise it properly. If then the Assembly is satisfied that there are dangerous persons who are going about intending to wreck merger and that they are using every possible means to wreck it, then I say to the Government, "The time has come to stop them from doing it, at least up till after merger." The intention of the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is - and we hope we will have the House with us on this - if the Barisan really mean that they want merger, then surely they must accept the proposition that follows from it - to frustrate any element that tries to wreck merger for reasons best known to itself. I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have been asked by the Member for Queenstown to indicate our line on the main motion. On that we will reply when our time comes, and when the time does come, Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that we will be given an opportunity to reply on the main motion.

No other Opposition Member wishes to speak? I propose to accept a closure of this amendment. Any Opposition Member who wishes to move a closure motion may do so now.

Mr Speaker, it has been repeatedly said that the action taken by the Member for Cairnhill when he was Chief Minister was a mistake. He now calls upon the Government to take action, and again the Government say, "We are not going to make the same mistake." Sir, when you say it is a mistake, it means you have brought disastrous results or have caused damage. I ask the Government what damage and disastrous results have been brought about by the action of the then Chief Minister by taking action against the Communists and putting them in Changi? The disastrous result was that we lost the election badly. I admit that was the disastrous result. It has not brought any disaster to Singapore. Singapore has got one new Constitution. We have got the Prime Minister sitting there. Without the new Constitution, he will not be sitting there. Probably if that was not done, we might even be under Communist control now, or the British might have possibly taken it back because of the trouble and the bloodshed. We might even be under martial law now, Sir, and even Malaya might not have got its independence, if the then Chief Minister did not act as he acted then. The only disaster that was brought about affected the S.P.A. As the Member for Cairnhill repeatedly said, he had always put the country and the people before the Party. We do not regret the fact that it has brought disaster to the S.P.A., although it brought us to a defeat of five against 43, and made it necessary for us to endure the humiliation and the harsh words of the then very arrogant Prime Minister. We swallowed that and we were happy because it had not brought disaster to Singapore, but, in fact, it has brought Singapore on the verge of independence. Sir, if they still say that this is not true, I would like to quote from "The Battle for Merger", page 198, the letter from Mr Puthucheary. He said: `Right up to the end of 1955 it seemed impossible that the British would make any imaginative political move which would turn the flanks as it were of the armed revolt.' Sir, if you read that passage carefully, it will give you the intention or the picture behind the minds of the so-called Communists. They did not think that the British would give up Singapore and Malaya so easily. They thought that armed revolt, bloodshed, riots and force were absolutely necessary to get independence for Singapore. That was what they thought, and Mr Puthucheary admitted that it was a mistake that they had thought that the British would not give up Singapore so easily - and the British did give up. If the then Chief Minister did not put such people with such misconceptions in a safe place and if they had been allowed freely to work on the theory that the British would not give up Singapore and Malaya without bloodshed and without armed revolt, what would have happened, I ask you, Sir? Would there be a Prime Minister sitting there with a Constitution and parliamentary democracy existing today? The Prime Minister gave that argument. I agree wholeheartedly that the happiness and the economic stability of the country have a lot to do with the fertility of the grounds for Communist manipulation. I quite agree with that. But, Sir, although that is true, it is not true to say that we must wait till there is economic stability and everybody is happy before you can take action. It is like saying, "Let us not catch the thieves; let us not catch the robbers. Wait till there is full employment when everybody has a job, then people will not want to steal, except a few kleptomaniacs. Nobody wants to steal, so let us wait till that position exists before we start arresting thieves and robbers." It is like saying that unless there is economic stability all round, let us leave the Communists alone. I do not think that argument holds water. You will remember, Sir, even a few years ago, when there was a series of kidnappings in Singapore, the Government took the same attitude. They would not move until pressure was put on them by the Opposition. I think the pressure today in this amendment is very necessary to make the Government move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the question be now put."

Standing Order 51 (1) reads: 'After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put", and, unless it appears to the Speaker or Chairman that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the Assembly, or an infringement of the rights ot the minority, the question, "That the question be now put", shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, not with standing that the mover has had no opportunity to make his reply.' I therefore put the Question. The Question is, "That the question be now put." That is the queston on the amendment. Some hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Take a division. Division bells rung for two minutes. 10.40 p.m.

A closure motion on the debate on the amendment has been proposed by the Member for Hong Lim. Before I put the Question again, I might read Standing Order 51 (4): `A question for the closure of debate shall not be considered to have been decided in the affirmative upon a division notwithstanding that the "Ayes" have it unless it appears by the numbers declared by the Speaker or Chairman that not less than twenty-five Members voted in the majority in support of the motion.' There must be 25 Ayes. Question put, "That the question be now put."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 31; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammed Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Leong Keng Seng. Omar Junid. Lin You Eng. Byrne, K. M. Low Por Tuck. Chan Chee Seng. Ng Teng Kian. Chan Choy Siong, Ong Chang Sam. Madam. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Chew Chua. Sheng Nam Chin. Goh Keng Swee. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandaswamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Chor Yeok Eng. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Noes.-cont. Abstention. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Nil. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Absent. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad bin Ramaswamy, S. Ibrahim. Sahorah binte Hoe Puay Choo, Ahmat, Madam. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Koh, C. H. Mrs. Lingam, S. V. Tan Kia Gan. Marshall, David. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Question accordingly negatived.

We are still on the amendment.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise not merely for the sake of taking part in this debate but because I feel the problem under discussion in this Assembly is an important one, and I think it is necessary that I convey to this House the views of my Party. 10.46 p.m.

It is fortunate for my Party that this Assembly has taken a decision to continue with the debate on the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not an irresponsible Opposition. We are not trying to usurp power nor do we wish to wreck anything without taking into consideration the consequences. So on this amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill it has been the stand of our Party right from its inception to defend and uphold parliamentary democracy in our country. For this reason, this amendment expressing no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to take appropriate steps to restrict the expansion of the Communist movement in Singapore is wholeheartedly supported by us. But I wish to make it clear that in giving our support, our anti-Communist stand is not anti-Chinese, for there has been a suggestion that anti-Communist means anti a certain community. It has been our fundamental stand to create a united nation and to inculcate a national consciousness in the various races in Singapore. We are not happy with the stand taken by the Government. Although the Prime Minister has dwelt at that they are an anti-Communist Party, except to tell the people that they are a length on his Government's way of fighting the Communist threat, they refuse to acknowledge non-Communist Party. But it is clear to us that the P.A.P. Government have slept and eaten together with the Communist leaders. In this matter, it cannot be said that the Government had made a mistake because they knew very well and they realised who their companions actually were. These former friends have now deserted them. It is true - as has been said by the Prime Minister of the Federation - that once a person is a Communist, he will remain a Communist. Our efforts to try and win the minds of the Communists cannot succeed. Why I cannot accept the arguments put forward by the Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is because it is merely an excuse for them to work in close collaboration with the Communists. We have seen what the P.A.P. Government have done in Singapore; they have helped to disseminate an ideology which is dangerous to the youths of the State. I say that it is dangerous to expose our youths to such an ideology because we know that the Communists are always trying to infiltrate into organisations. We have seen the damage done to this country immediately after the P.A.P. came to power. And I am quite sure that there are many industrialists today who are reluctant to invest their capital here because they would first like to have an assurance - an adequate guarantee - that it will be safe to do so. But today let us have a look at the state of the trade union movement although the Government may believe that the setting up of the Industrial Arbitration Court has brought about industrial peace in Singapore; similarly in matters of education where damage has been done; and, so too, the development programme which has been blocked by the Communists. Mr Deputy Speaker, a point which has impressed us was that the amendment moved by the Member for Anson which sought to delete the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" was rejected by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They prefer the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" to remain in the original amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. It is not my intention to reopen the debate on the amendment to the amendment, but it is clear to us that the Barisan Sosialis Members are openly accepting the challenge contained in the amendment and they do not want to escape from the original intention contained in the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill. Mr Deputy Speaker, at the moment we are at the cross roads as to whether we are to uphold parliamentary democracy in our State or we will be forced to follow the footsteps of the Left-wing leaders who are dictated by the Communist Party. For instance, from Indonesia, they have followed the events leading to the Malaysia debate. It is clear to the people of Singapore that there are two groups now which would like to shape the fate and destiny of the people of Singapore; one is for parliamentary democracy while the other is for Communist dictatorship in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis have moved this no confidence motion. Their intention is merely to create an atmosphere of tension. For instance, if their motion is approved and adopted by the Assembly, it means that the Government will have to resign and we will go hack to the people to face another general election for the purpose of electing a new government. This is clear even though the Referendum Bill has been adopted by this Assembly with a majority. According to parliamentary democracy, even those who oppose the Referendum Bill must accept it; they must accept the majority decision. But this has been used by the Barisan Sosialis as another occasion to criticise the Referendum Bill in spite of the fact that it has been assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am quite sure that the Government is under an obligation to carry out the referendum. But because-

Order. I think the Member for the Southern Islands is going completely away from the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill.

(In Malay): Deputy Speaker, when I mentioned the Referendum Bill, I wanted to emphasize my point, that the Barisan Sosialis which is playing an important part in opposing the referendum is clearly a Communist movement. There is no need for me to elaborate on this point because it is clear that the Barisan Sosialis do not like to see Malaysia or merger materialise. Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the amendment whole-heartedly. This is our clear stand to the end. The people will weigh our stand carefully and they will have an opportunity to pass judgment when the time comes for us to go back to them. 11.00 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length, because I am tired and fed up. There is no need for me to remind the Minister for Home Affairs of what we are discussing just now. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not only hate the Barisan Sosialis but I also loathe to see the faces of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis which Party, in my opinion, stinks with the odour of a Party that has gone bad. It is clear that they are really traitors who are out to do damage to the prosperity which the people of Singapore are now enjoying. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Geylang Serai and I had occasion to exchange views and we are of the opinion that if the Member for Upper Serangoon were a Minister, he would not be able to prove his sincerity, particularly to the indigenous people of Singapore and generally to the people of Malaysia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I often thought that the Barisan Sosialis have not only been infiltrated by pro-Communist and Communist elements - this is causing concern to the P.A.P. - but that they have also attempted to disturb U.M.N.O., including myself. Not only from within U.M.N.O. but also from the other side, they suspect that I am an instrument to wreck Malaysia, because there is a section in U.M.N.O. who are demanding this and that hi the local newspapers. Recently the Plebeian of the Barisan Sosialis supported a section of U.M.N.O. It alleged that someone was fighting for the Cyprus Constitution in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis claim to be wise but they are actually unwise if they want to play politics as a game of chess. I have played this political game of chess with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and also with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law. In order to attract certain sections of U.M.N.O. to wreck Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis must not indulge in this game at the moment. It is too late because the Barisan Sosialis struggle is inappropriate. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the game being played by the Communists who are trying to set one against another, whether they are in the Government or in the Opposition. Quite recently, Mr Deputy Speaker, there was an article - I have it with me and I will read an excerpt - that U.M.N.O. has been accused of supporting the P.A.P. in its undemocratic action. This is a recent news article in the Plebeian, the organ of the Barisan Sosialis. I am surprised; why should the Barisan Sosialis be envious or jealous of the U.M.N.O. Members in the Assembly? What have we robbed from them? As far as I know, we have not given them any trouble. I have told them not to try to offend the U.M.N.O. Members. If they want to try to offend U.M.N.O. Members in Singapore, then I believe that the consequences will be very bad for them. Mr Deputy Speaker, it appears that the Minister for Home Affairs loves the Barisan Sosialis. The reason is that he pampers them. They are given $500/- allowance each and they are granted other privileges. Even the constables on duty show their respect by saluting every Member of this Assembly when he enters or leaves the Chamber. On the other hand, I wish to remind the Minister that when U.M.N.O. supported the Government to eliminate the A.R.T.I.S. movement, why was he then afraid of the Communists and the pro-Communists? Mr Deputy Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis said that the Government did not arrest them because they were afraid, but tonight the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture said that the Government are not afraid. The people will decide who are afraid and who are not afraid. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, regarding the pro-Communists and Communists who are playing their role in the Barisan Sosialis, is a good amendment. I say it is a good amendment because it will protect the leadership of the Barisan Sosialis from the Communist danger. We from the Alliance are conscious - and we hope that the Government are conscious too - that the Barisan Sosialis have been infiltrated by Communists; and with this consciousness, as well as with the object of protecting the leadership of the Barisan Sosialis, I plead with the Government, if possible, after the sitting of the Assembly, to instruct the Special Branch to issue orders for the guards to be ready to arrest and detain them at a place they think fit, so that our plan can be proceeded with in peace and harmony. That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker. Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

On a point of order, Sir. I understood the ruling was that only Opposition Members would speak on this and we then will return to the main motion. There is a guillotine, Sir, and if you will allow us the chance, we might be able to speak a little on the main motion itself.

As far as I know, I do not think there is a ruling that the Government Benches would not be allowed to speak on this amendment. But if there are Opposition Members who wish to speak we can give preference to the Opposition Members and then to the Government Benches. But since so many Opposition Members have spoken on this amendment, it is only fair to give a chance to the Deputy Prime Minister to speak.

Mr Mammen, may I know your ruling once more? I still think we should have a little time to speak on the main motion.

Order. A motion was moved for the closure of the debate on the amendment and a vote was taken with 31 Noes as against 15 Ayes. That is all under the Standing Orders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Cairnhill moved his amendment he made a very clear statement in regard to what he would have done if he had known that the Prime Minister - at that time the Member for Tanjong Pagar - was consorting with "the Plen". The Member for Cairnhill made no bones about it that he would have put the Member for Tanjong Pagar in gaol so that he would do a little rethinking. Probably if the Member for Tanjong Pagar were in Changi Gaol he might not be the Prime Minister today, but I would have thought that probably he could have spent his time very usefully studying Mandarin or Hokkien so that he could deliver better speeches in those languages at mass meetings. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have explained very well indeed that the method of controlling the Communists, as advocated by the Member for Cairnhill, is inadequate, and that what is more important is to consider the long-term solution to the problem. Both of them have drawn attention to the fact that the political and social conditions in the country are vital in the fight against Communism. The Member for Anson previously advised the P.A.P. to get rid of its Communists and Communist fellow-travellers. Last year this group of people left the P.A.P.; they purged themselves out of the P.A.P. and 13 Assemblymen went across to form the Barisan Sosialis. Those who control the Barisan Sosialis today are quite well versed in the united front tactics which the Member for Anson and the Member for Cairnhill knew only too well when they were Chief Ministers. May I just quote what the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, had to say when he was Member for Bukit Timah, in Hansard of 7th June. 1956, col. 2050: `But now the Liberal-Socialists also refuse to be party to the censure of the Colonial Office for rejecting the minimum demands of the people of Singapore. They go further. They are prepared to censure the delegation of the people of Singapore. This is something which cannot be forgiven by the people of Singapore. This Party proves once again that a change of name does not mean a change of quality. The old Progressive Party, composed of the "yes" men of colonialism, and the not so old Democrat Party, composed of reactionary local capitalist elements, together thought that they could fool the public if they called themselves by a new name - the Liberal-Socialists. The donkey tried to pretend that it was a horse. But this amendment proves once again and for all time that this Party is neither Liberal nor Socialist. If they are honest with themselves and with the people, they will call themselves by their correct name - the Colonial Collaborators Party.' Sir, today we find the Barisan Sosialis forming a united front with the Liberal-Socialist Party - the very same Party which the Barisan Secretary-General in 1956 had castigated as a Colonial Collaborators Party. The Barisan Sosialis Party can be very aptly named today as the Barisan Liberal Sosialis. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Anson supported in principle the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill; only he did not want the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" to be included in the amendment. He was supporting in principle that Communist and Communist-front leaders should be restrained from manipulating and controlling organisations. The Member for Anson in one sense is quite honest. He has said in this House that he is always the champion of parliamentary democracy and is therefore against Communism. Throughout the records of Hansard, since 1955, you can see that there is only one consistent line of thinking which the Member for Anson has - he is for parliamentary democracy and against Communism. Therefore, in that sense, he is honest. He has learnt from his bitter experience of how the Communists wove circles around him when he was Chief Minister. First, there was a rally at Kallang to send off the first constitutional delegation to London. At this rally, the Member for Anson, then Chief Minister, was standing side by side with me, or rather I was standing side by side with him on the platform. The platform collapsed and he disappeared from the scene and went back to his Changi home. Subsequently in the debate in the House on the incident, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Member for Tanjong Pagar, read statements from the Press concerning the stand of Mr David Marshall towards those who had caused the collapse of the rally. We said that gangsters were responsible for the collapse of the rally, but Mr David Marshall insisted that it was the Communists who caused the platform to collapse and made a fiasco of the rally. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to give an opportunity to the Members of the Opposition to speak on this amendment, because this amendment is theirs and, as I have said before, we are going to refrain from voting on this amendment.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not take much of your time just a few minutes. We of the Alliance moved the amendment to the motion of the Member for Queenstown because we are of the opinion that not only has the Government not carried out its duty towards the people of Singapore, but also its duty - as the Prime Minister has said - to our friends in the Federation of Malaya. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he and his Government do not wish to use strong-arm methods; they do not wish to use the police to arrest those whom he accuses of being Communists or supporters of the Communists. He and his Government are of the opinion that the methods which were used by the former Government, of which I was a Minister, were methods that were not correct and that they would only increase the number of Communist followers in Singapore. My Party do not at all agree with the stand of the Prime Minister and his Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, let us see how the Government of the Federation have overcome this problem of Communism. Being at war with the Communists from 1948 to 1960 for more or less 12 years, the Government of the Federation of Malaya did not hesitate to use force against the Communists and their supporters, and in that war in Malaya against the Communists, the police and military forces were used, and many sacrificed their lives. In addition, many civilian lives were sacrificed - Malays, Chinese and Indians. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government of the Federation of Malaya knew its responsibility. It had no fear of arresting such Communists and their supporters. What are the consequences today? Local elections have been held throughout the Federation of Malaya. In places which were formerly Communist strongholds, what has happened now? It can be said that more than three-quarters of the local elections have been won by the Alliance and that three-quarters of the places where they have won are areas which were formerly dominated by the Communists or by their supporters. I am putting forth this argument to refute what the Prime Minister has said that he did not wish to use force. He wanted to calm the people's minds; he wanted to attract their attention or to win their hearts. These were the only ways by which he had hoped to overcome the problem of Communism. To the Prime Minister of Singapore and to the Government of Singapore, I say, do not fear. If the former Government could use force and strong measures to overcome the Communist problem - as was done in the Federation of Malaya with success -why should the Singapore Government not use similar methods to overcome the problem here? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not saying, as some of the Members of this Assembly do, that all members of the Barisan Sosialis are Communists; but the Government and the Ministers over the radio, in the Press and in this Assembly have always accused the Barisan Sosialis and its supporters of being members and supporters of the Communist Party. If the Government knows that there are Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and in other organisations, I think it is its responsibility to deal with them if it is really keen in protecting the welfare of the people of Singapore and the security of our friends in the Federation. The time has come for the Government to carry out its administration and to use the powers given by this Assembly to deal with the Communist danger, which the Government has said is at large in the Barisan Sosialis and, recently, in other organisations. I am compelled to believe the propositions put forward by the Government, for the Barisan, which have been openly accused, have not denied that among their ranks there are people who are members of the Communist Party. 11.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, here I would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that many of the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis have been accused by the Government as Communists or Communist supporters. They have always uttered unsavoury words against the Government of the Federation of Malaya and its leaders. Many such people who are members of the Barisan Sosialis at this time have no shame at all. I say that they have no shame because some of the Members, whom I need not mention, are not citizens of Singapore but citizens of the Federation. And I know of two leaders of the Barisan Sosialis who, when attending conferences in the Federation and elsewhere, used passports issued by the Federation Government. These are some of the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, and they say that they do not like the Federation; that they do not like merger; that whatever the Government say is not correct. They do not seem to have any shame, as if they are animals. They do not like the Federation but still they use passports of the Federation of Malaya. And such people are leaders in the Barisan Sosialis! Casually I say this so that the Federation Government could pay attention to this: that their citizenship be taken away and that the Government of Singapore could pay attention to this - that those people who are not citizens of Singapore should not be given an opportunity to take part in politics in Singapore. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 15; Abstentions, 26; Absent, 3. Ayes. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Buang bin Haji Jumat. Omar Junid. Ahmad Jabri Bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammed Akib. Chan Chee Seng. Lim Yew Hock. Chan Choy Siong, Mohd. Ali bin Madam. Alwi. Chor Yeok Eng. Rajah, A. P. Goh Chew Chua. Seow Peck Leng, Goh Keng Swee. Mrs. Kandasamy, G. Thio Chan Bee. Koh, C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Noes. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Bani, S. T. Mammen, John. Chan Sun Wing. Marshall, David. Fung Yin Ching, Mohd. Ariff bin Miss. Suradi. Lee Siew Choh. M. Ismail Rahim. Low Por Tuck. Ong Pang Boon. Ng Teng Kian. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Chang Sam. Ramaraswamy, S. Ong Eng Guan. Sahorah binte Sheng Nam Chin. Ahmat, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Lingam, S. V. Amendment accordingly negatived. Original Question again proposed.

On a point of guidance, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could rule that we have a few minutes to discuss the final motion on the Order Paper, i.e. the Adjournment sine die motion.

I am afraid not. The guillotine falls at 12 o'clock midnight and all matters will have to be disposed of then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, three years ago - let us go back - the P.A.P. swept into power with a majority of 35 in this Assembly. It had just won 43 out of the 51 seats, which was a record of no mean achievement in any parliamentary election. Mr Speaker, Sir, in those days I am sure the eight Opposition Members on this side of the House were feeling a bit cool, particularly when the air-conditioning here is cooler than the average. Then during the course of the following three years the tide changed. The Opposition ranks started to swell and, Sir, you must be finding difficulty in placing seats for those new additions to the Opposition. With 26 now on this side and 25 on the other side, the temperature of this Chamber, from the effect of the air conditioning, is just nice, because it is evenly distributed. Last week, Sir, the defection of the Member for Bras Basah has tipped the scales. It has reduced the Government's majority of one to a minority Government. Since then this Government has managed to survive not from its own majority but from acts of chivalry and generosity displayed by the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. which managed to keep the P.A.P. from being outvoted. Sir, I feel sorry, as I skip through the events mentally, the rise and fall of the P.A.P. Government is like the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Looking back on its heyday, I could remember vividly the days when the overwhelming masses of the people found in the P.A.P. a beacon of their hopes and the depository of their aspirations. The masses surged forward - [Interruption] Sir, they were hiding behind. They dare not come out yet. The masses surged forward at the call of the P.A.P. The forces of reaction trembled at the very mention of its name and at the sight of its symbol. But, Sir, all these happenings have occurred within the short space of one or two years. The arrogance displayed by the P.A.P. leadership led to the antagonism of the intellectual and the middle classes. An hon. Member: What about the Mayor!

Its deviation from the stated policy and the avowed aims of the P.A.P. has alienated the masses of the people who have swept the P.A.P. into power. A stage has been reached when no power on earth can resuscitate the P.A.P. even to a mere shadow of its past. In Hong Lim, despite the forces at its disposal, the vast State and party machinery at its command, the number of opportunists at its behest and those who are prepared to abuse the sacred slogan of "Left-wing unity" at the bidding of the P.A.P., the forces of the people delivered a crushing defeat on this ignominious alliance. The P.A.P. was smashed once and for all. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take you for a few minutes back to what happened during polling day at the Victoria Memorial Theatre, where the Prime Minister was ready to march into Anson preparing for the Anson by-election, I understand, with two vans of firecrackers. But the result was what he did not expect. With tears in his eyes, he spoke with emotion in the Hong Lim Branch that this is the finish of the P.A.P. and that "We must resign." Therefore, Sir, here is a Government which is prepared to go all out to beat a "graceful" retreat. Here is a Government which has through its follies and its serious departure from its political principles forfeited the moral right to govern. How can a minority Government steamroller through its constitutional proposals which have far-reaching consequences not only to ourselves but also to the future? How can such a Government, which exists on sufferance only, justify itself in the eyes of the world, a sham referendum to give a facade of democracy with unacceptable constitutional proposals? Sir, the P.A.P. is now no more, as I have said, than a mere shadow of the past. As people are saying, it is even difficult for them to muster a few hundred to fill up the few hundred chairs in the Cultural Centre. Let us recall the last open meeting they had, that is, the celebration of The Sixth Anniversary of the P.A.P. at the Badminton Hall, where from the photos and from what I heard, there were about seven or eight hundred Party members and supporters attending the meeting. Since then we did not hear of the P.A.P. having a seventh anniversary celebration. The eighth anniversary celebration is coming very soon and they are now having meetings in the small little Cultural Centre. I am very doubtful if they could even fill the few hundred chairs there. Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Hong Lim Resolutions, the thousands of members the P.A.P. had, suddenly disappeared. The last opening meeting, as I have said, was attended by only several hundred members. What was left after the Hong Lim Resolutions were only Generals, Colonels, Lieutenants, Captains- An hon. Member: Corporals.

Corporals. But the rank and file have disappeared.

Quarter-master.

This Government now lacks a political organisation for the proper discharge of its task and its responsibilities. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very important for Government to have the backing of a political organisation. Just 25 Members here would not be able to understand what the masses want and would not be able to translate Government policies into action for the benefit of the masses and interpret to them what the Government is trying to do. Therefore, this Government which now lacks an adequate political organisation has no right to carry on any more. Sir, the years that have been spent since November 1954 - nearly eight years ago - and the sacrifices by the thousands of members of the P.A.P., are now all wasted. The P.A.P. is now a spent force, with hardly any political support in the country. Does it represent the workers? No, Sir. Does it represent the farmers? No. Does it represent the intellectuals? No. Does it represent the businessmen? No, Sir, because most of them are supporting the S.P.A. Does it represent the civil servants? No. There is no section of the population now which supports the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I speak tonight, I do not speak from any feeling of animosity or anger at what the Prime Minister did to me in the way of personal insults or injuries. I forgive him. But, Sir, we cannot forgive him for what he has been doing in the past few months. We cannot forgive him for the White Paper constitutional proposals which he is going to push through by a sham referendum.

You said an alternative.

A genuine alternative. Bread and rice, not potatoes and bread. Sir, I only feel sorry-

For yourself!

-that the final chapters of a Party and a Government with which I was once associated should come to such an ignominious end. The final chapters of this Party and this Government are drawing near. The curtains will soon be drawn. An hon. Member: 12 o'clock.

That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have this form of democracy. Guillotine at 12 o'clock, filibustering, so that the Opposition would not be given a chance. Why should there be? Why should you worry?

On a point of elucidation.

The Member does not give way.

I have only seven minutes, Mr Speaker, Sir. An hon. Member: What about the others?

There is no need to filibuster because what we speak tonight only a very small percentage will come out in the newspapers tomorrow. For instance, we are having a mass rally on Sunday and we were given twelve conditions. I will just take two minutes to explain one of the conditions. There are twelve conditions, Mr Speaker. And one of the conditions - condition No. 11 - reads: `That no caricatures or drawings of any description may be displayed." And I have to sign on the form: `I certify that I fully understand that any breach of the conditions of this licence will lead to a prosecution. Signature.' Mr Speaker, Sir, there are restrictions, restrictions and restrictions. The Prime Minister now is afraid of caricatures and cartoons. He is afraid of the Opposition Parties drawing his- An hon. Member: Handsome features!

- handsome features. Why should he worry, Mr Speaker, Sir, because when we in the P.A.P. were in the Opposition in those days, we drew cartoons of Chew Swee Kee, the Member for Cairnhill, and everybody in the Government. There is no harm in everyone being drawn. Like in the Hong Lim by-election, they drew cartoons of me riding a beycha with the Member for Cairnhill and many Right-wing leaders at the back. We just laughed it off. But the Prime Minister now feels it. He is afraid we will draw big caricatures, a big cartoon of Government leaders displayed in the mass rally. We are not supposed to distribute anything. Nothing is to be distributed, Mr Speaker, Sir. An hon. Member: Distribute prizes.

For the Minister for Finance! An hon. Member: He deserves a gold medal.

No banners or posters except those which have been approved shall be displayed. And what has been approved will be in the list. Persons attending must not display national emblems and nothing should be distributed which has not been approved. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I deplore is that despite all these restrictions, despite the guillotine, they should still filibuster until the Opposition have no chance to speak. What has happened in tonight's debate was, instead of the P.A.P. being on trial, the P.A.P. Government with the support of the S.P.A. has turned this Chamber into a trial of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, what I deplore is that in its last pangs, the P.A.P. Government, being a minority Government, with only 25 seats out of 51, still seeks to steamroller through its White Paper proposals-

Shame!

- very shamefully by means of ,a dishonest referendum. It is still not too late, Sir, for the P.A.P. to change its mind. We know that tonight will be the last sitting, the last three minutes of the Third Session. The Assembly will prorogue from now onwards. Once the Assembly is prorogued, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be more pressure put on the Press, more restrictions on mass meetings. Instead of twelve conditions, we might have 13, 14, 15 or 16 conditions.

No, we stop at 13. It is unlucky!

The next condition is this. We must give the list of speakers and the subject matter. Next time they will ask that the speakers must give their photographs and thumb-prints. These are all necessary. If the Government is confident that its White Paper proposals have the support of the people, it should allow the Opposition Parties to have rallies as freely as he had during- An hon. Member: You want an election?

Have it tomorrow. Come on. Tanjong Pagar, Hong Lim -

Order. If the hon. Member for Hong Lim wishes to waste time, he may waste time. He must address the Chair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know these people too well. We worked together for six years. We are ready for any general election at any time. We know these people will not commit the same folly as the S.P.A. - dilly-dallying, not sure whether to have a general election or not. We know that the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance has been amended so that they can have a surprise general election in seven days' time. And all the time we are keyed up for a general election. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, two weeks ago we had a big membership meeting which frightened the lives of members of the Government. We are ready at any time from now onwards to have a general election. We did not, Mr Speaker, Sir, challenge the Government to the Hong Lim by-election, just spouting empty air. We are prepared br it. The organisation is ready. Any time we can have polling. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Just give us only one rally. That is all that is required.

Chan Say Jame will fix you.