Hansard, 1963-04-09

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr S. Ramaswamy (Bukit Merah), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance - from 16th April to 1st June, 1963.

asked the Minister for Finance what progress has been made in the Common Market talks with the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker. Sir, this House has been informed on several occasions that the discussions on a proposed Commodity Common Market between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore have concluded with an agreement to submit the matter for further investigation by a body of international experts. That body of international experts, namely, the World Bank Mission headed by Professor Jaques Rueff, is now here and the two Governments are waiting to receive their preliminary recommendations.

(In Mandarin): Can the Parliamentary Secretary enlighten this House as to when this delegation from the World Bank can table a report to this House as regards its investigations?

The Word Bank Mission is here. They are making investigations and preparing their report. I cannot say what is the exact date when the report will be submitted.

asked the Minister for Finance whether trade between Singapore and Indonesia has improved since the establishment of the Trade and Cultural Commission in Djakarta, and to what extent.

There has been a great improvement in total trade between Singapore and Indonesia since the establishment of the Singapore Trade and Cultural Representation. The value of Singapore's exports to Indonesia has more than doubled since 1960. In 1960, we exported $121 million worth of goods to Indonesia; in 1962, our exports increased to $292.5 million, which is 242 per cent of the 1960 figure. As the hon. Member may be aware, every country tries its utmost to expand its export trade and this increase in our exports to Indonesia is most gratifying. As regards imports, the value has declined and this is due principally to the heavy fall in the price of rubber over the last two to three years. Rubber accounts for more than three-fourths of our imports from Indonesia. Although values have dropped, the volume of imports, that is, the quantity of rubber imported, has increased considerably, from 285.3 thousand tons in 1960 to 367.2 thousand tons in 1962, an increase of nearly 30 per cent. The Singapore Trade and Cultural Representation has helped to explain Singapore's policy to the Indonesian Government and in return to understand and appreciate Indonesia's policy, thus helping to foster and improve cordial relations now existing between Singapore and Indonesia.

asked the Minister for Finance what amount of Government funds has been invested in foreign countries since 1962, and where.

I am sorry, Sir, for the delay in replying. Since 1st January, 1962, a total of ---

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that if he is answering on behalf of a Minister, he should preface his remarks by saying, "I have been asked to reply."

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. Since 1st January, 1962, a total of $141 million was invested by the Singapore Government in gilt-edged securities available in the London money market. These Reserve Funds are not immediately required for utilisation in Singapore. The money so invested can, at a moment's notice, be transferred to Singapore any time the Government is in need of it. This practice of investing such reserves in the United Kingdom is adopted by all Commonwealth countries - Asian, and non-Asian.

asked the Minister for Finance how many pioneer certificates have been granted since June 1959; what is the total amount of paid-up capital involved; and how much of this capital is from foreign countries, and from which countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. Since June 1959, 24 pioneer certificates have been granted. Another five certificates will be granted soon. For the firms which have been awarded pioneer certificates, the capital involved is as follows: $ Total Authorised Capital 163,750,000 Total Subscribed Capital 48,538,715 Total Paid-up Capital 33,112,132 (a) Local 13,972,134 (b) Foreign 19,139,998 For the other five firms, the capital involved is: Total Authorised Capital 9,500,000 Total Subscribed Capital 920,202 Total Paid-up Capital 920,202 (a) Local 364,204 (b) Foreign 555,998 Of the total amount of Paid-up Capital, 58 per cent is from abroad. This foreign capital comes from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan, Hongkong, Holland, Switzerland, and other countries.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said that foreign capital of $19,139,998 has been invested in local industries, namely 58 per cent. Can he tell us whether the Government has any future plan to encourage our local capitalists to invest in our local industries and not to issue too many of these pioneer certificates to foreign capitalists?

We have always encouraged local capitalists to invest in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Finance what action has been taken against bogus insurance companies since the coming into operation of the Life Assurance Companies (Compulsory Liquidation) Ordinance, 1962; and whether any policy holder has been refunded his money, and what percentage of the original amount.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. The Life Assurance Companies (Compulsory Liquidation) Ordinance, 1962, came into operation on 3rd April, 1962. Positive steps were then taken to wind up and liquidate the unsound life insurance companies in Singapore. There were, at that time, two groups of such companies. Firstly, Federation incorporated companies with branches in Singapore; and secondly, companies registered and incorporated in Singapore. The first group of insurance companies are being liquidated by order of the Federation High Court. The process of liquidating a company is a lengthy one, often complicated with legal technicalities. Because of this and because of the tens of thousands of claims that were reviewed, the liquidators in the Federation have not been able to complete their work in respect of any one company. There is information, however, that while a few companies may have some assets that could be realised and distributed, many were in poor financial position and it would be optimistic of any policy holder to expect any more than a fraction of his claims to be honoured. Action has been taken in Singapore to wind up the unsound insurance companies registered here. The liquidators appointed have been working to realise the assets of the insurance companies and of the three Singapore companies. Policy holders will be informed in the next month or two regarding their claims and the refunds they will receive.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary assure this House that after one or two months some of the policy holders can get a refund of their premiums?

Mr Speaker, I have already said that the policy holders will be informed in the next month or two regarding their claims and the refunds they will receive.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, according to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, it means that the Government cannot assure this House that in the coming two or three months the policy holders cannot realise their claims. The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) rose -

The Parliamentary Secretary is answering questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it all depends on what assets the Companies have. If there are any assets, the policy holders will receive whatever can be distributed.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many persons applied to have their names inserted in the electoral registers in 1962; how many applications have been approved; of these, how many were from Singapore citizens by birth, and how many were from Singapore citizens by registration; and how many have been refused, and the reasons for refusal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is presumed that the Member for Choa Chu Kang is referring to the claims submitted during the revision of the registers for 1962. There were roughly 15,000 claims submitted during the statutory period and the number of claims disallowed were 1,395. The reasons for the claims being disallowed were lack of qualification or non-attendance at the public inquiry to give information as regards entitlement to registration.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that 1,395 claims were refused. Can he inform this House as to what happened to the other 14,000 claims?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is obvious. All the others except the 1,395 were approved and their names will be included in the registers for 1962.

The question also asks how many of them were Singapore citizens by birth and how many were Singapore citizens by registration. Is the Minister prepared to answer that part of the question?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a compilation of these classified figures asked for by the Member for Choa Chu Kang has never been kept in the past and it is not being done now, especially when the Elections Department is busily engaged in the revision of the electoral registers for 1962.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to my knowledge, the registration of citizens born in Singapore is done by procuring their identity cards from the Identity Registry before they can be registered. Those who have been registered as citizens are those whose names have been supplied by the Citizenship Registry. Therefore, the Minister should be able to know the various figures asked for.

I cannot, for one moment, understand the purpose of the question of the Member for Choa Chu Kang. It is quite true that if the Government wants to get these figures, it can do so if there is time and the staff for it. As I said just now, the Elections Department is busy with the revision of the 1962 registers and, as far as I can see, there is no purpose in getting the figures.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of those citizens born in Singapore and those registered as citizens arose in the constitutional talks between Singapore and the Federation. Therefore, this question is very pertinent. That is why we have asked this question. The reply given by the Minister shows that he is not willing to disclose these figures.

The Member now is inviting a debate. Perhaps the Member's question could just be: In view of what he has said, will the Minister reconsider his answer?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if a citizen by birth or by registration is qualified to be a voter, his name will be placed in the electoral register. I have just obtained information from the Minister for Finance that to obtain the information for the Member for Choa Chu Kang, the Government will require another $38,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the earlier reply of the Minister for Home Affairs, it seems that we are not entitled to know the figures or facts of the Government Ministry. I am asking, are we entitled to know the facts and figures in the Government Ministry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Havelock is prepared to approve $38,000 for this purpose, we will engage the staff to get this information for him.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government intends to redelimit the boundaries of the present electoral divisions in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not considered the question of redelimiting the boundaries of the existing electoral divisions.

"to amend the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960 (No. 39 of 1960)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to move the "Guillotine" motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That the proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister, in regard to the Internal Security Council's Decision and Statement on Communist Conspiracy, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight. However, I would like to inform the House that it will be my intention to lift Standing Order No. I so that the debate on item 4 relating to the Internal Security Council's Decision and Statement on Communist Conspiracy will be taken until the completion of the proceedings on that item.

The Leader of the House does not intend moving that business motion now? He prefers to wait until 7 o'clock?

Yes.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted day].

2.59 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Supplementary Estimates?

I so signify.

The Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 as contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1963. The summary is at the back page. On Head 4 - Legislature - there is no notice of amendment. The sum of $26,018 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962. Head 45 -

There is an amendment+ standing in the name of the Member for Choa Chu Kang in relation to subhead 1, New Item - Deputy President. +The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new item - Deputy President, Grade G ($1,520) - of subhead 1.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of 537,561 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962. 3.00 p.m. Head 50 -

Head 50 -Ministry of Home Affairs. There is an amendment standing in the names of the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Upper Serangoon in relation to the new subhead.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new subhead - National Referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, under this item, the Government asks for $436,001 to be paid for the shameful National Referendum conducted on the 1st of September last year. Mr Speaker, Sir, to the people of Singapore, the 1st of September last year was a dark day. It was a day when parliamentary democracy died. Throughout the whole proxies of the National Referendum, the people in Singapore were able to see that the P.A.P., in order to prolong their political life, did all sorts of shameful things and utilised all means of the propaganda machinery to intimidate the people of Singapore. This is only for the sake of a few leaders in the oligarchy of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, we saw that on that day the Government used all police vans with loud-speakers. They went to every housing estate, every lane, every street and every village to intimidate people, to coerce them into voting for the Government's proposal as otherwise they would lose their citizenship rights. We were able to see that officers in the Ministry of Health went to the coffee shops, laundry shops and canteens. Now, if the licences of these shops had to be approved by the officers in the Ministry, then the officers went and pasted up Government posters about the National Referendum on the walls of these shops and intimidated the people into voting for proposal A, otherwise they would find difficulty in carrying on their business. Mr Speaker, Sir, you could also see that the Prime Minister in the mass meeting at Fullerton Square uttered his threats through Radio Singapore, thereby forcing the people to vote for the P.A.P.'s proposal. From all these propaganda activities conducted by the Government, we can see their main object was to salvage their political life and not for the national interest or for the interest of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, you could also see that on National Referendum Day, when the voting came to an end, the various political Parties were not able to enjoy all the facilities. They were not allowed to send representatives to supervise the counting of the votes. We also saw that the ballot box in every division was not carefully examined and the representatives were not able to know where these ballot boxes came from. However, only the P.A.P. people knew to which electoral divisions these boxes belonged. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is very important. All the people in Singapore knew that the P.A.P. would make use of the National Referendum to find out the extent of the people's support for them. The Government also knew that if they openly disclosed the electoral boxes to the Opposition Parties, that would be to their disadvantage. Because of this, the whole National Referendum was conducted under undemocratic conditions. About three weeks ago when the Prime Minister paid a visit to Sembawang, he said during the course of the National Referendum that many people in the rural areas put in blank votes. That was because the Government was not doing enough in the field of propaganda in the rural areas. The Prime Minister also pointed out that during the course of the National Referendum, the number of blank votes in the Jurong area was very high. It was the highest throughout the whole of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, all these speeches by the Prime Minister very clearly exposed their political aims in conducting this National Referendum. In other words, the Ministers in the P.A.P. were trying to seek out the safe seats in a future general election. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is why the Government spent the people's money for their own political objectives and they have no reason to ask the House to approve the $436,001 as ---

The hon. Member is interpreted as saying that the amount to be voted is $436,001. The amount is $372,422.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government ask this House to approve the sum of $372,422 for the purpose of the National Referendum. What I have said just now very clearly shows that we the people in Singapore have no obligations to pay out this sum of money because the people of Singapore were not able to know the detailed results of the voting in each electoral division except the P.A.P. In view of this, therefore, the Government have no reason to ask the people to defray this amount of expenditure. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is why I think this sum of money should not be approved by this House.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum ---

Order. This amendment has already been moved by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. But the Member for Upper Serangoon can, of course, speak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I deem it necessary to add to what my colleague has said just now. This is a question of principle. No matter what amount of money was spent on the National Referendum, it should not be paid by the people in Singapore, because in the 51 electoral divisions, how many people voted for proposal A, how many people voted for proposal B, how many people voted for proposal C, how many people cast blank votes, how many spoilt votes were there, and how many people did not turn up at the polling stations? All this information about the voting was turned into a political secret by the P.A.P. and was known only to the P.A.P. Therefore, this amount of money should be defrayed by the P.A.P. and not paid by the taxpayers because the Members in this House are all elected by the people. Therefore, if the expenses were to be borne by the people, then the representatives in this House should be entitled to know the results of the referendum. But we are not able to know the detailed results of each electoral division, and if the P.A.P. kept this information as their political secret, then they should pay for it. 3.15 p.m. We know that if they want to buy political secrets, they have to pay more. Therefore, they should pay a sum which doubles this amount if they want to buy political secrets. We are not objecting to their buying these political secrets. So they have to pay for this and not ask the people to pay for it. The crux of the problem is not whether the amount is great or small but whether or not the result of the referendum should be made known to the people. Therefore, the people in Singapore have no obligation to pay for this amount of money.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have doubtless noted that when the Member for Choa Chu Kang rose to speak against this particular Head in the Supplementary Estimates, his arguments were completely political in nature. There was no discussion of financial or economic merits of this item of expenditure. Since he chose to raise his objections on purely political grounds. I feel that in defence of the Supplementary Estimates before the House I must meet him on the same grounds. And so I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I should ---

Order. It is, of course, perfectly in order for any hon. Member to attack an item on political grounds. The Minister can reply on similar lines, of course.

Yes, I do not dispute that, Mr Speaker, Sir. But it does occur to me that in the course of my rebuttal, I may have to go over very tedious arguments which have been belaboured in this House so often and much to your discomfiture and perhaps tedium. So in advance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do crave your indulgence if I have to ---

Make a two-hour speech?

One hour really. Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang said that the 1st of September last year was really a dark day for democracy and that, in fact, he saw the referendum was an exercise of such evil dimensions that it was a very gloomy day for democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot at all subscribe to this sentiment. Far from 1st September being a dark day for democracy, it was the brightest day, it was the turning point for democracy in Singapore, for it was on that day that the Communists, pro-Communists and their sympathisers working in the open front organisations were completely exposed. Until then, they had tried to build a myth of invincibility - that they control the masses, that they control the trade unions, and that anybody who stood up against them would be destroyed politically through the democratic processes. But eventually when they take over the organs of State, the destruction will be more than just a question of electoral constitutions; it will be physical elimination and liquidation. That was the fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they would spread through all their multifarious open front organisations from the time they broke away from the P.A.P. in May 1961. These are the weak men who themselves were for the most part not believers in Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary philosophy; but when the parting of ways took place between the non-Communist socialists in the P.A.P. and the Communists and pro-Communists in the P.A.P., these men and women were made of straw. Subjected to a tremendous amount of persuasion and intimidation, they decided to "play with the Communists". That was the only reason why they weakened and went over to the other side, thinking that, with all the panoply of open front organisations which we have allowed the Communists to organise, it was only a matter of time when they could seize power and break us up. And we took up this challenge, and on 1st September last year the battle was joined. What was the result? We allowed them all the constitutional freedoms - they could have all the mass meetings provided they observed the laws, which they did. I must pay them a tribute, Mr Speaker, Sir. The mass meetings were held in accordance with the conditions of the licences stated for the conduct of such mass meetings, and they thought that they were winning. And this is the curious thing - almost to the end the Communists and their running dogs in the Barisan Sosialis believed that they were going to win. Never for one moment, until perhaps a day before polling day, did they entertain any doubt at all as to the outcome of the referendum; so certain were they! Now, Sir, why were they routed? Why was there such a tremendous defeat for these people? Sir, if you will bear with me for a moment, I will try to analyse the position. As I said, I have got to go back to basic historical processes when the Communists broke with us. Their No. 1 mistake was to break with the P.A.P. on a national issue. We said that we wanted merger with Malaya and that we were in favour of Malaysia, as indeed all genuine nationalists in this country must support. They oppose `merger and Malaysia for obvious reasons which have been explained adnauseam in this House. They oppose merger and Malaysia simply because after merger and Malaysia the Internal Security Council will be in the hands of the Federation Government who have a less delicate regard for constitutional niceties and rights that can be afforded to Communists and their fellow-travellers. The Federation Government have got clear views on them. We, on the other hand, say we will always give them an opportunity for the legal open confrontation so long as they observe the laws and the constitution of the country. But I am afraid opinion in Kuala Lumpur differs from ours on that point. Therefore, because they feel that after merger and Malaysia they will be conscribed, they oppose it purely for their own selfish political interests. That is their No. 1 error which led to their defeat on 1st September. Their No. 2 mistake, which combined with their No. 1 mistake proved fatal, was that they said they wanted more merger than the P.A.P. They wanted complete merger. Therefore, since we wanted merger on special terms and they wanted complete merger, the issue that had to be posed in this referendum was not whether you wanted merger or you did not want merger, but what type of merger did you want. Our type of merger was Alternative A; complete merger Alternative B; or the Borneo/Sarawak type of merger Alternative C. Those were the three honest issues that were posed to the electorate for their choice. I do not want to go through the merits of each of the three alternative choices; but suffice it to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the electorate of Singapore listened to all points of view. We never stopped the Barisan from having mass meetings. They were completely free to disseminate their views any time they liked, in any way they liked, provided they observed the law. And they went pretty close to the brink. For instance, carrying out this phoney Gallup Poll in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer - strictly speaking, according to the Municipal bye-laws and a few local laws, these exercises were illegal. But we said. "Well, it does not matter." They wanted radio time and we offered them radio time. We wrote to them, "Please come to Radio Singapore and let us discuss matters in a human and adult manner." Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sad to relate that after about ten days of the open confrontation before the radio microphone, the Barisan decided that they had enough of it and would not appear before Radio Singapore. The people knew exactly what was fought for, Mr Speaker, Sir. No amount of sophistry, of half-cooked Marxism-Leninism or what-have-you on the other side can deceive the people that the best interest in the near future is to have a limited conditional form of merger whereby Singapore will have a considerable measure of local autonomy. And because the Barisan were foolish enough to try to outbid the P.A.P. in wanting more merger than we did, they failed in the result because the people of Singapore at the present moment are prepared to go only so far and no further in a merger with the Federation of Malaya. The Barisan Sosialis thought that complete merger was out of the question. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may let the House into the secret for the first time as to the reason why the Barisan Sosialis tried to outbid the P.A.P. in demanding complete merger. Mr James Puthucheary was an old colleague of ours. In 1959 we unlocked the gates of Changi Gaol and released him and placed him in a position of responsibility. When the fight between the P.A.P. and the pro-Communists developed into a crisis, I could see Mr James Puthucheary - he was working in my Ministry - weakening from day to day. Eventually he told me that he was going over to the other side as he found his position as a supporter of the P.A.P. intolerable. And he said they were going to wreck merger, "This is absolutely on the cards." I said to him, "James, why do you say so?" Then he did some calculations on a piece of paper. He said, "There are 105 seats in the Federal Parliament. The Alliance has 60 votes; the Opposition has 40 votes; a margin of 20. If Singapore were to go in on full merger, Singapore would get anything between 20 and 25 votes, the majority of which would be anti-Alliance votes. Therefore, under no circumstances will the Federation Government contemplate complete merger." Complete merger, of course, means proportionate representation. Therefore, he said, "We are going to outbid you, and that will put you in a fix." That was the No. 1 reason. I do not know if that was the No. 1 or No. 2 reason - the strategist in the Barisan Sosialis who led them up the garden path. It was absolutely a basic error in political strategy. If at that time in May or June 1961 they had said, "Nonsense with merger. Absolutely nothing. We want an independent Singapore, come what may", then, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we had a referendum, the choice must be either merger with the Federation on those terms or complete independence. And if the alternative posed in the referendum was either merger with the Federation or complete independence for Singapore, the result could have been one way or the other. But given a choice of limited and conditional merger, and complete merger, we had no doubt at all what the result would be - a shattering defeat for the pro-Communists who on that occasion were trying to be too clever. 3.30 p.m. Now, Sir, although we had no doubt as to the outcome, we took the precaution of ensuring that the electorate understood all the basic issues involved in the referendum. The Barisan accused us of using the radio to put forward these views. What is so wrong about it? What is the radio for but to explain to the people the nature of the decisive choice which they had to make on 1st September? It was quite proper. We had to do it. We have no apologies at all. We are not at all ashamed. In. fact, we are very proud and we are very glad that they found out how the use of the radio was so effective. That is why we have advanced the time for starting Television. It is going to be even more effective - not only sound, but audio-visual aids! Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not really enjoy tormenting the young men and women on the other side, but I think it is about time they listened to a few home-truths, having wandered, like the lost tribes, through the desert and not being able to come out. Now, Sir, not oily did we use the radio but we made sure - after all, not every family in Singapore owns a radio set - that there had to be a face-to-face explanation. The Member for Choa Chu Kang complained about the use of police cars. We used police cars simply because - I have forgotten the exact number; I think there were about eight or nine police cars - we could commandeer them at the time for use to explain to the people, face to face. We told them what this was all about. We used police cars because some of them have loud-speaker equipment. If the Barisan Sosialis think that the whole of our field propaganda outfit consists of police cars, they are absolutely wrong. The police cars amounted to more than 10 per cent of the loud-speaker vehicles which we sent out. We sent out 75 such vehicles equipped with radio, loud-speaker and tape-recorder. On the average, each of these teams carried out between 30 and 50 �-hour meetings per day, bringing a total, during the referendum period, of between 6,000 and 8,000 meetings throughout the towns, streets and villages. Let them not believe that this is just a matter of half a dozen police cars. We arranged the referendum publicity campaign with all the thoroughness and energy that we could command. There is absolutely no apology for what we did. Now, the broadcasting of Fullerton Square speeches. What is wrong with that? I do not know why they even raised that subject. But on the fourth point which they raised, that is, the result of the referendum was not known to the Barisan. Sosialis, they complained, saying, "You must know what the results are." Mr Speaker, Sir, the referendum was conducted on the 1st of September. I thought the result was published on the 2nd of September last year. I am surprised that they do not know the result. The result was that they had a hell of a whacking. An hon. Member: Not by constituency.

Ah, they want to know the result constituency by constituency. I would have thought that for their peace of mind, it is better that they do not know. To these two particular Assemblymen, for their own peace of mind, I say, the less said, the better. They want to know! Why should they know? The law does not say that they must know. No referendum results in any democratic country, or even in any undemocratic country, are published constituency by constituency. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, we went through all this in Select Committee. We challenged the representors in Select Committee to produce any precedent, and they were completely unable to do so. The Member for Upper Serangoon said that the P.A.P. know the result and that therefore we should pay for it. This really brings into the proceedings of this Assembly a somewhat mercenary element which we do not quite like. But I say to the Member for Upper Serangoon, whether or not the Barisan want to pay for it, they will still not know what the detailed results are. There is absolutely no reason why they should know. In fact, for their own peace of mind, it is better that they should not know.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new subhead-National Referendum." As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. Hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say No. I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it.

Division.

It is too late. I have declared the result. The sum of $372,422 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962.

Question, "That the sum of $436,001 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11, of 1963", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $436,001 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1963.".

Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. 3.40 p.m.

Resolved, "That this Assembly, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 93, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- Tun Lim Yew Hock Mr Chan Sun Wing Mr Ong Eng Guan Mr Lee Khoon Choy Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj Mr Wee Toon Boon Dr Toh Chin Chye."-[The Prime Minister - Dr Toh Chin Chye.]

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Amendment [8th April, 1963] to Question [8th April, 1963], "That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- `We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.'.".-(The Prime Minister). Which amendment was, `at end, to add - "but this Assembly regrets that the Government has failed to implement its election pledges and urges the Government to truthfully and honestly ascertain the views of the people on their constitutional future".-(Dr Lee Siew Choh). Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

As I have indicated, the debate could range over the whole of the Address as well as the amendment. Inche Ahmad Jabri had the Floor. 3.43 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, to continue with my speech where I left off yesterday in connection with the motion in the name of the Prime Minister expressing our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I was speaking of the awakening on the part of the Government to expect co-operation and support of all political leaders and community leaders. However, from the practices employed by the Government, I can say that they still consider the Opposition Members as a group which cannot extend their co-operation in the interest of the people of Singapore. I say as a Member of this Assembly, as an elected representative of the people, that it is accepted in the Constitution of this State that each representative represents his respective constituency irrespective of whether the constituents voted for him or not. However, in the light of the tactics adopted by the Government, it does not even consider such representatives as elected representatives, let alone extend respect to them. For instance, I am unable to understand the concept of the P.A.P. democracy when, as the representative of the Southern Islands, I was not consulted on the occasion of the visit of the Head of State to the Southern Islands. I feel that it should have been proper on the part of the Government to have consulted me. Later, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister will visit the rural constituencies throughout Singapore. I understand the Prime Minister has visited the Kampong Kembangan constituency where the representative is my colleague. I was informed that the `Member for Kampong Kembangan was only invited to participate just for name's sake only. I understand that the Prime Minister will be visiting my constituency - the Southern Islands - either on the 21st or the 28th. This came to my knowledge unofficially. Meetings were conducted by the heads of the Islands to prepare for the Prime Minister's visit. At these meetings, the question was asked why the Member for the Southern Islands was left out at the meetings to discuss the Prime Minister's visit. The Government's reply was that the object of the proposed visit is for the Prime Minister to know the extent of the difficulties encountered by the people in this constituency. The question which I have posed, Mr Speaker, is not motivated by sheer jealousy for fear of loss of my constituency, but it was motivated more by our attempt to achieve a democratic society. I think the time When we have different views on political ideologies was during election time. It is up to the people to make their choice according to the Constitution. In accordance with the practice of parliamentary democracy, the candidate who gets the most votes is elected. Surely the intention is not to carry on this ideological battle continuously. We should not engage in activities which will confuse the people. If we are sincere and are dedicated to the service of the people, we should not have any qualms or fear as to whether we may or may not be elected at the next election. That is the accepted practice of parliamentary democracy. We will have more responsibilities to shoulder in the next 4� months. If this practice based on party ideology is carried on, as expressed by the Member for Geylang Serai, there is bound to be that feeling of provincialism when Malaysia is achieved. This will lead to a state of affairs which no one wishes. As unanimously agreed, we should set an example to fulfil our duties to our people. Mr Speaker, I further wish to touch upon the Communist activities as mentioned in the speech delivered by His Excellency. We must be ready to face any eventuality which may be posed by the Communist threat in future. It is appropriate that we should shoulder this responsibility. We cannot face this responsibility all by ourselves. When we realise the manoeuvres of our enemies arc to wreck our hopes, we should not' hesitate and be afraid to take positive steps which we are certain will bring prosperity and security to our State. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, we have shown the dangers and yet the Government fights shy of taking action, or is passing the buck to the others to take action - I cannot say which. If the P.A.P. Government, which is non-Communist, is shy to declare openly that it is anti-Communist but sincerely believes that the Communists have no sympathy towards humanity and are constantly taking destructive action, I hope it will really behave like non-Communists. I hope it will not keep, in its midst pro-Communist elements who are still at large in Singapore. Mr Speaker, this matter will be mentioned again in the next motion. I do not intend now to make a lengthy speech. Concerning the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown wherein he expresses his regrets, it seems to me that he is not satisfied with the decision taken by the people at the referendum held on 1st September last year. I realised that it is difficult to satisfy people like the Member for Queenstown who cannot accept the decision of the people. The call for honest general elections can be set aside so that we will not be bothered by that. Regarding the future policy of the Government, I would like to mention the treatment given by the Government for equal opportunities. I think the Malays in Singapore are ready to live in harmony with the other communities, but the Government's hope to establish an egalitarian society will not be achieved. I respect the P.A.P. Government with its socialistic policies. But it has been stressed in the Constitution, as mentioned by the Member for Geylang Serai, that it should be the responsibility of any government to promote the interests of the Malays in all spheres. The object of including this clause in the Preamble is not because the Malays want to supersede the other races. It is but a request for the non-Malays to consider the special position of the indigenous people so that the Malays will not be treated like the Red Indians in America and the Maoris in New Zealand. What harm is there in the Government helping the Malays to lift up their standard of living irrespective of their political beliefs? I have to mention this, Mr Speaker, because this has been misrepresented as a result of different political beliefs. There are political Parties who are afraid to implement this clause in the Preamble. For instance, if there are non-Malay leaders, such leaders are not prepared to put forward a scheme for the Malays because the non-Malays will not support their political Parties in future. If there are Malays voicing the special position of the Malays, those Malays will be accused of indulging in communalism. Mr Speaker, the awakening of the Malays to survive and to live has been proved by their acceptance of the Constitution. If they are hard pressed and there is no change in their status-for instance, the provision of flats. The Malays are not accustomed to living in flats. If it is within the means of the Malays to live in flats, there is no doubt that they will be prepared to live in them. On the other hand, if he is a fisherman or a hawker earning $2 or $3 a day, surely he cannot afford to live in and pay a rental for a flat. The Housing and Development Board expect that rentals for flats must be paid promptly, otherwise the tenants will be evicted. This aspect must be considered. We know the environments here are pleasant, but in the Southern Islands there is really a sorry state of affairs, to the extent that talented children, who are keen to further their studies and who have passed their examinations, cannot go to secondary school because their parents cannot afford to send them to secondary school in Singapore. In the circumstances, the parents have no alternative but to stop their children from attending secondary school in Singapore. I have on many occasions pressed the Government to build a secondary school in the Southern Islands for the benefit of the children there. Unfortunately, my request has not been considered by the Government. I do not know if it is because they consider the request as coming from a non-P.A.P. member. I have made arrangements for those children attending primary school to live on the mainland. I hear the officials of the Ministry are not very happy with my action because they consider it is a reflection on the Government. In all sincerity, Mr Speaker, I am prepared to assist these unfortunate children in any way I can to make available facilities for their further education. For instance, the school at Blakang Mati. In 1961 I raised this question. The Minister for Education himself, when asked when the school at Blakang Mati was going to be put up, replied that it would be in 1961. But it is not until 1963 that the school is put up. This is also to coincide with the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister to the Southern Islands. Similarly, the jetty at Sekijang Pelepah. Because the Prime Minister will be visiting that island, work is now in hand to repair the jetty. The school at Sekijang Pelepah, which was built when the Member for Hong Lim was the then Minister for National Development, is being left haunted. These are all political manoeuvres and there is no sincere intention to bring facilities to the Southern Islands. We should not continue with these practices as political leaders; we should forget political affiliations when we fulfil our obligations towards the people. We should not allow the people to be made use of as political pawns. On the question of .the Economic Development Board which is responsible for the economic development of Singapore, many sites have been prepared for industrial growth. One of the islands affected is Pulau Ayer Limau.

4.11 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker, I learnt that from the newspapers and I immediately wrote to the Board about the plight of the people. Only when I wrote to the Board were they willing to communicate with me, and, of course, they were prepared to co-operate with me as an elected representative of the people. My assistance was sought on how to resettle the affected families because the island was going to be used as a harbour. In our endeavours to industrialise, I bad hoped that the Malays who have to be resettled on Pulau Semulut would also benefit. I had also hoped that this would pave the way for them to be in gainful employment. Hitherto, they are engaged in fishing. The setting up of factories in the vicinity will, it is hoped, mean more employment for the islanders. However, it appears that the islanders are still waiting for the setting up of factories and I feel guilty as though I have deceived them. When I got their consent to shift them from Pulau Semulut to Pulau Ayer Limau, I gave them an assurance that they would be considered for employment when the factories are set up. They are still waiting and there is not a single factory that has issued a notice to the islanders asking whether they are prepared to work in the factories. Very few people indeed have got employment. The Board has never recruited any hands from the islands. I fear that the affected places concern only the Malays - for instance, Pulau Semulut or Tanjong Kling - who will be resettled elsewhere. If there is an intention to get these people to live in flats, and if they are unemployed, how can we expect them to do so unless, of course, they are in steady employment? Another example is the case of Pulau Bukom. We are happy to see the industrial growth in that island because this will mean more employment. However, Sir, this growth is only in its preliminary stage. At Pulau Bukom, the Shell Company has asked its employees to vacate their houses and find alternative accommodation on the mainland of Singapore. This again affects the Malays because the number of Malays living in Pulau Bukom is great. I hope the Government will not sit tight and watch the Company taking such steps without first making available alternative accommodation for its employees. We do nut object to the Company enlarging its sectors, but it must ensure that its employees will not be put to hardship. Then again the question of employees being dismissed. I do not intend to dwell at length on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker, but what I really wish to convey is the position of the Malays. The position of the Malays has not received attention. Although it has been mentioned that the Government has provided free textbooks and free schooling, it is still found that the agents of Government or Government officials do not give consideration to the special position of the Malays. For instance, on the subject of circulars from Ministries regarding the provision of textbooks, some teachers have failed to notify the students of this facility for the reason that if they do so it means more work for them. Such circulars which the teachers receive from the Ministry are not relayed to the students. For instance, if certain forms issued by the Ministry are in the English language, the parents cannot understand these forms. So time is wasted in their translation. The excuse given by the teachers is that the applications submitted cannot be considered as they are too late. This is the method employed by the Ministry. I think it must be rectified. It is a slow process to build a just and equal society. 4.22 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Hansard Vol. 20, No. 1 is supposed to contain the Government's policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I challenge the Government to submit this speech to Parliamentary experts and seek their opinion as to whether this is the policy speech of the Government for 1963, a speech which is customary for the Head of State to deliver at the opening of a new Session of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. Sir, this speech is nothing but an election campaign speech spreading P.A.P. propaganda. It is a catalogue listing the P.A.P.'s self-styled achievements in the greatest detail possible.

Hear, hear!

It is not a policy speech. It does not give any idea of what policy the Government intend to follow this year. It gives no suggestion at all ---

Bankrupt.

--- of the legislation Government intend to introduce or amend, the social services Government intend to provide, Government's attitude and plans with regard to national employment, security, labour, trade union, and so on. In fact, it tells us nothing: absolutely nothing. Compare this with the policy speech delivered by the Head of State of the Federation of Malaya on 26th April last year. Sir, if you will look at Hansard Vol. IV, No. 1 of the Federation, at col. 27, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong says: `As Members of both Houses of Parliament you are here today, as you have been in past years, to hear the important aspects of my Government's policy so that you may deliberate on these and through this gain acceptance in both Houses during this session.' Later, he goes on to say: `I propose rather to survey the broad lines of policy my Government intends to follow during this year. In doing so I believe that you will obtain a most valuable and useful picture of the thinking, planning and priority which my Government considers to be most beneficent and productive in the national interests and well-being of my country and my people.' That is exactly what everybody expects out of a policy speech. Do we find that in our Hansard Vol. 20, No. 1, Sir? Nothing of the sort. We are told nothing at all. And not only is the Opposition kept in the dark concerning new legislation and amendments until these are introduced, but when they are introduced, they are often introduced on Certificates of Urgency and rushed through. Sir, not satisfied with using public funds and Government machinery to promote P.A.P. propaganda, they now insult the esteemed office of the Head of State by turning him into a mouthpiece and publicity agent for the Party. They abuse the privilege and dignity of this Chamber by using it as a ground for election ---

Point of order. Sir, I think it would be less embarrassing all round if the Lady for Mountbatten could confine herself to what has been published. I think no reference has ever been made to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. He fulfils a constitutional role and what he has read out has been published by the Government. I think it would be preferable if she makes no reference to him whatsoever.

So far the hon. Member for Mountbatten has not attacked the Yang di-Pertuan Negara personally.

Thank you, Sir. May I say that I have no intention at all whatsoever to attack the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? My attack is on the Government for drawing up that speech and making him deliver it. Sir, one just has to read the speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara - of course, it is a Government speech; and again I repeat it is not the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech - and one will see very clearly the reasons why the Alliance Government in the Federation is such a success compared with the failures of the P.A.P. Government in Singapore, which is only one mile away.

Ha, ha!

The Causeway is about one mile long, Sir.

The Head is in Kuala Lumpur.

He is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the whole of the Federation, Sir; of Johore as well, which is only one mile away from Singapore. When reading the Hansard of the Federation, one cannot help but realise that the Alliance Government is humble, courteous and full of gratitude and consideration for others. Immediately after the formal salutary remarks, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong said, at col. 27: `Speaking in a spirit of profound reverence and humility I should first offer on behalf of the whole nation our heart-felt thanks to Almighty God for the peace, happiness and progress which we have enjoyed in the past year. May we, under His protection and benevolence, continue to have these blessings, so that we may carry out our duties honourably and well, conscious always of our responsibilities both to God and to our fellowmen.' Later, Sir, in col. 40, he said -

Order. After listening to the hon. Member for Mountbatten so far, I am wondering whether we are debating the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's speech or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. She is quoting the Hansard of the Federation Parliament. Of course, she can quote the contents in passing, but if she is going too much into details, we will be debating the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's speech instead of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Sir, I am just pointing out what is missing in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech-things which should have been in, and rather than give my own opinion, there is no better way than to quote examples of what should have been in it, from other speeches of Heads of State. As I said, in col. 40, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong gives credit to the civil servants. And he says: `I would like to take this opportunity, which I am sure all Members of both Houses of Parliament will wish to share with me, to pay a warm tribute to their devotion to duty and to their service to the community during our years of independence.' Everyone, Sir, even the abstract God, receives thanks where thanks are deserved. The Federation Government even took the opportunity to record its gratitude to countries and organisations that extended to it hospitality and aid and to show its appreciation and the importance of the co-operation of the people. I have mentioned all this, Sir, to show that all these human relations are very, very important and if only our Government - the P.A.P. Government in Singapore - would practise little appreciation of human relations like that, and when they have a public opportunity like that, to thank publicly the people who have given aid, hospitality and the like; also the civil servants, who have given their services; the Government would get much better results and a better feeling internationally and locally. An hon. Member: Election speech.

Sir, I am not hoping that the United Nations or other governments and international bodies would give me their vote when I ask the Government to thank them. Sir, even the Opposition is not discriminated against in the Federation. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong even mentioned them as part of the whole Parliament when he gave credit to the Parliament, and when he said that the people looked up to them as their leaders and their representatives be included everyone in the House. Even the Opposition was mentioned and their role was recognised and respected by the Head of State. Now, compare it, Sir, with this, our Hansard, which the Government was very anxious that I should come to and leave the Federation Hansard. I shall leave the Federation Hansard for the time being and come to the Singapore one. Compare this with the egoistic, selfish and arrogant atmosphere of the P.A.P. policy speech which was delivered by the Head of State here. `The P.A.P. claims all the credit for all the achievements that they have catalogued in the so-called policy speech. No one else deserves any mention or credit, neither God nor man, not even the civil servants without whom no P.A.P. projects could have been implemented - none of them received any mention or thanks in the Speech. Neither the U.N. nor international organisations and governments who, as I have pointed out just now, are not going to give me any of their vote, and who have rendered aid, service arid hospitality, not even the electorate who have voted them to power have deserved any mention. To the P.A.P. - I think this is a well-known fact - the whole world is a P.A.P. world and no one, as I have said, neither God nor man matters. They live, they work, they strive - they work very hard, I give them that credit, Sir. After blaming them for not giving credit where credit is due, I give them the credit of working very hard. They work very hard, they strive very hard not for the people of the State of Singapore but for the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. alone. Development projects have been imp1emented with one eye on the next election and the other eye on their present seats in this Chamber. Consequently, no eyes are left for the welfare of the people. For example, Sir, in the housing project, you will see in Hansard, Volume 13, No. 2, 1960, column 82, it was only after I had exposed to the public that the Government had only built 124 houses as against 6,734 built during the first year of the previous Government, that they started to wake up and started building. They were then complacent about public needs because they were over-confident of their power and their overwhelming victory in the last elections. Sir, now that they have to fight for their survival because of the splits in their Party, they are pushing ahead, building houses in order to catch votes, ignoring the vital social consequences of their planning. For example, Sir, may I ask the Government whether they have taken the trouh1e to find out - for instance in the case of a squatter who has been forced by fire, or some inevitable factor like slum clearance, to seek a Housing Board flat - this squatter with a househo1d of twenty persons, who used to pay $2 or $3 assessment probably, when he moves into a fiat, let us say, if he takes a one-room flat and pays about $25; only four or five persons can stay in that flat? Therefore, he has to rent about four or five flats for his entire household, bringing his expenditure on rent to about $100 a month. Have the Government taken the trouble to find out whether this extra expenditure - such a great difference, Sir, $100 as compared to the previous $2 or $3 - whether this extra expenditure incurred in paying rent and public utilities has caused increased crime and delinquency? Whether people have to go out and steal to make enough money to feed their family? Or whether the need for extra money and the opportunities made available by the new housing provision have led to the economic independence of the women? The necessity to work and the opportunities available might have made the women go out and work. Therefore, it is a good thing and Government should encourage this. Has Government taken the trouble to see the social consequences of its housing project? How and to what extent the modern provision of housing affects and disturbs the patterns of family and community life? Whether modern housing patterns promote racial harmony? Or do they have the opposite effect of causing friction among people of different races, beliefs, customs and creeds? And what role Government can play to help minimise if not eradicate entirely these frictions? You have heard the Member for Geylang Serai mention, Sir, that if blocks of flats are offered to Malays, he feels that they would accept blocks of flats. Well, it is up to the Government to find out whether it is good in the long run to segregate them for temporary peace, or whether it is better for the Government to try and promote tolerance among them. All this is very, very important. I am asking the Government to say whether all this has been thrashed out, debated, and the opinions of experts and those interested and the families themselves sought; whether a survey or a research has been made to find out the true situation, to avoid racial friction and, what is more important, to promote racial tolerance; to discover whether the breaking up of large households into small family units have improved family ties among members of the families and the different families in the household. This is as important as racial harmony - this family harmony - because where there is not this harmony in the family, it is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency. Do the Government know to what extent modern sanitation and health and other facilities have benefited the people? Sir, you will agree with me that misuse of those facilities can in time - probably 20 years, 15 years, 10 years - turn that housing estate into a slum. Has Government tried to find out whether people from the slums who come to a housing estate are living up to the standard expected in a housing estate, or are they bringing slum standards into the housing estate and endangering or threatening to turn the whole of Singapore into slums - the more housing estates, the more slums? This is not just imagination, Sir; it could happen and to prevent this happening, we must find out - An hon. Member: Do not build houses!

Oh, no, Sir. By no means, the solution is not in "Do not build houses," Sir. If you get indigestion, do you starve yourself to death? No, that is not the remedy. If you have indigestion, you find some remedy which will get rid of your indigestion. You do not starve yourself to death. You do not say, do not build houses because they are going to turn them into slums. You have to prevent them from becoming slums.

How?

Well, it is up to the Government. Sir, when we form the Government, I shall tell the P.A.P. how? And if they are interested, Sir, they can find out how even before we form the next government. Now, this is how! I hope they will take note of this, and they will give some assistance. Two women organisations in Singapore, the P.P.S.E.A.W.A. and the Wanita Singapura are jointly making a study and survey in their own limited way - I admit it is a very limited way - to find out the real state of affairs in these mutters and to see how women organisations in Singapore can step in and help to minimise any adverse consequences that may be revealed by the survey. If the Government is sincere in its efforts to raise the standard of living in Singapore, they would take interest in finding the answers to these questions and assist in the said survey, although it is headed by a Member of the Opposition. As the P.A.P. Government is inclined to belittle and mock all efforts except their own, I would like to quote a little paragraph from page 35 of the Report of the E.C.A.F.E. Seminar held in Singapore last December. Talking about voluntary organisations, women organisations and youth organisations, it says: `It is only too easy to underestimate their value in relation to the size of the problem with which they are concerned, but the fact that they are concerned and that within their limitations they are tackling the problem, are of great significance.' That is the Report of the United Nations, so I hope the Government will not belittle it too much. If they think that the effect of the survey is too small, they can come and help make it more effective. Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai mentioned the housing development in Kampong Amber. I would like to add this. No doubt compensation is paid to the squatters, but it is not sufficient to find them a new home. It may not be advisable, and I am not here trying to suggest that the Government stop the development - No! It may not be advisable to hinder private efforts in development, because such efforts do help to ease unemployment and the housing problem. But the poor victims of such development must not be allowed to suffer. The Government must help them to get new homes; they deserve this after giving up their own homes in order that Singapore might be developed. Now, where labour is concerned, Sir, in column 20 of the same Hansard, that is, Volume 20, No. 1, the Government said they hoped to "build it modern industrial city out of Singapore". May I remind them, Sir, that the success of their industrialisation projects depends on labour conditions in Singapore? If the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis continue to interfere in trade unions and compete in encouraging strikes in order to get the support of the trade unions, then no amount of effort to industrialise Singapore will succeed. In the end, who will suffer? Not the P.A.P., not the Barisan, not even the capitalists because the capitalists have elsewhere to invest their money besides Singapore. It is the worker who will lose his job if this goes on. Trade unions must be left alone and not be coerced and intimidated by the P.A.P. or the Barisan into supporting them. Psuedo advocates of unity and freedom for trade unions are now themselves causing a serious split in the trade union movement. Everybody knows, Sir, today there is a clear demarcation within the trade union movement - one side is the pro-P.A.P. trade unions, the other side is the pro-Barisan trade unions. Whenever you talk about a strike, they ask which, P.A.P. or Barisan trade union? They even call them "P.A.P." or "Barisan" trade unions. I am sure you will find this very common in the streets and shops when you ---

What about the S.P.A?

Sir, I think we can proudly say that we have not interfered with and we have not used labourers to win an election. An hon. Member: Women.

Not even women. When I say "used", Sir, I mean used to their disadvantage - exploited them. Of course, all our campaigns are carried out by men and women, not cats and dogs surely. What I mean is, we never exploit them like the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis exploit workers, causing them to lose their jobs, and who cares? "They can lose their jobs; all the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis want is their support." I warn them, Sir, they will not get their support when the workers lose their jobs. I leave it to the world to judge whether the P.A.P. and the Barisan are true trade unionists or political adventurers, whether they are the great statesmen that they claim to be, or whether they are just power-mad politicians stabbing their own ex-comrades in the back in their struggle for power, as each has accused the other of doing. I am not accusing them, Sir; I have heard them accusing one another, and I leave the world to judge which they are. It would be relevant here, Sir, for me to quote what the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation said in his speech to the Grand Alliance. He said. "A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation." Whether the P.A.P. and the Barisan think of the next generation or the next election is for the world to judge. Now, where finance is concerned, it is obvious to anyone reading column 7 of Hansard, Volume 20, No. 1, that the P.A.P. Finance Minister is a magician who just has to wave his magic wand, and hey presto! the money in the Treasury begets more money. But what is not so obvious, Sir, is that the magic wand is nothing but P.A.P. inactivity for almost two years. No less than the Hon, the Deputy Prime Minister himself admits that in Hansard. Volume 13, No. 6. Our Deputy Prime Minister said on the 9th of August, 1960, in column 460:- "The slowness - admittedly the Government was slow in getting housing development to start - was due to the depletion of technical staff and the haywire changes in building plans. A total of 79 monthly-rated staff left the service of the S.I.T. They were dismissed, or they resigned, or they retired. And of these 79, 22 were senior officers, five being heads of departments and five were heads of sections." Our Deputy Prime Minister admitted the inactivity in housing development and he also accepted the responsibility in column 461 for the fact that "our housing development programme has not got off to a fine start". True, that was years ago! But there were two years of inactivity, and the money reserved for that development has accumulated and that has formed the magic wand that has made money beget money. However, Sir, I must give credit to the Minister for Finance. I am prepared to respect his claim for credit for having brought the Treasury to this wealthy state. We all know he is a brilliant Finance Minister and I give him credit. Although I did say that the money has accumulated through two years of inactivity, I do give him credit for bringing Singapore into such a wealthy state as they claim it is now. Singapore is now wealthy enough to make, according to this Hansard, Volume 20, No. 1, contributions in loans and other assistance to help develop the Borneo territories. Do you not think, Sir, that it is only fair and just that the Government should restore in full the money which has been "illegally" - Sir, I say "illegally" because not even a month's notice had been given - illegally taken from the pay of civil servants who have given the best years of their lives in loyally serving the State of Singapore? Now, let me make this very clear. I do not want what I have said twisted to mean my objection to the Government giving help to the Borneo territories. It is nothing of the sort. What I am saying is this, I am appealing to the Government, to borrow a phrase of the Prime Minister of the Federation when he addressed the Grand Alliance recently - this is what he said - I am appealing to them to "see the elephant in front of their eyes before looking for the needle across the seas." Remedy this great injustice that they have done to civil servants before attempting to extend a helping hand to others across the seas. It is a very good gesture to extend a helping hand: I am all for it. I say let us remedy this home injustice first. The money is theirs by right, Sir. It was taken away from them because of the Government's miscalculation and lack of foresight. Had they the foresight to see the state of affairs we would be in today, probably the civil servants' pay would not have been cut. The money is still in the Treasury, and it has helped to beget more money. It should be returned to them in full now. No logical reason, Sir, can be given for returning only part of that money. I hear someone say in jest, "... with interest". That reminds me, the money has helped Government to gain interest on it, and the civil servants have never asked for interest. They have just asked for the money that has been taken from them. They are not asking for interest; they are pretty generous. Sir, could I end up with this? I say to the P.A.P. Government: restore the pay cut in full and they will get more goodwill and co-operation from the civil servants than all the dinners at Sri Tamasek. Thank you, Sir. 4.48 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the policy of the Government as expressed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara recently, I am glad to draw attention to that part of the speech wherein he says Singapore has weathered the storm and that all is now calm and tranquil. But we must always be vigilant because there are still some elements in our midst who are actively trying to disrupt national security and sabotage our plans for Malaysia. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that these anti-national elements are still against the establishment of Malaysia. Has the referendum not been held and has it not given a definite answer that the people of Singapore from all walks of life have decided how their future should be established? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must say in this Assembly, let this be a warning to all those anti-nationalist elements who wish to disrupt the unity of the Malaysian territories, because Malaysia is not for the Malays only, but also for the Chinese and for the peoples in the territories of Borneo and from various races. Malaysia is non-communal, as has been said by the Barisan Sosialis. If the Barisan Sosialis try to flare up the flame - and they are trying very hard to do this - then I say it is possible this will mean loss of life and will result in bloodshed. There have been enough examples of this in the past. There are people in Malaysia who adhere to foreign ideologies and who would stand by Djakarta. We are firm in our stand. Although the people who are the leaders of our neighbouring country, Indonesia, are people of our own kind and they are against Malaysia, nevertheless we pay no heed to them at all and we will proceed with Malaysia. So the Barisan Sosialis should be aware of this and consider the matter very, very carefully, because to be against Malaysia is to be against a nationalist movement among people who have the same outlook. So, if there are still those elements within our midst who adhere to foreign ideologies - it is possible that they in their dislike for Commonwealth troops would prefer foreign troops - they should not dream that we will give them an opportunity to bring in foreign troops, who are tinted red, to look after the welfare of these territories. I myself. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will defend my homeland no matter what happens. I hope this warning will be received well by those parties concerned and they should not bring about communalism in an effort to bring about peace and harmony. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we know the Assembly would not like the British and Commonwealth troops to be in Malaysia, but this is only a matter of political rnanoeuvres. We make use of them for our

As it is 5.00 p.m. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Question again proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, continuing what I have said just now in the Assembly regarding the attitude of U.M.N.O. especially towards those political Parties which are anti-national, we know why the Barisan Sosialis are much inclined to make Singapore a fort for opposing Malaysia. I am altogether surprised that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis were not connected with an incident recently when a member of one of the labour unions I represent had his nose broken by one of the favourites of the Barisan Sosialis. One of their leaders asked a seaman, "Are you Lee Kuan Yew's man or Tunku Abdul Rahman's? I asked that person, "Did he ask whether you are Lim Ching Siong's man?" The reply was, "No." Mr Speaker, that means that the Barisan Sosialis do have an ulterior motive as stated by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech. Further, Mr Speaker, I have made investigations into the labour movement before and after the formation of the Barisan Sosialis who can be said to have control of the leadership of S.A.T.U. The investigations were in connection with the workers in Shaw Brothers. As a leader of the people, as one who has the interest of the trade unions at heart, I have found that all the statements published in the papers used the name of the persons without their knowledge. I asked one man. "During the election, whom did you vote for?" The answer was, "I voted for the P.A.P." I asked him, "Why have you changed your attitude now?" The reply was that because of the formation of Malaysia he was forced to vote for the P.A.P. and also because the statements given to the Press were without the knowledge of the persons concerned. It is certain that such things are not carried out in a democratic country; and the Barisan Sosialis have used all these methods for their own interests. I asked the members present at that meeting, "Are you or are you not aware that you are all members of the unions under the administration of S.A.T.U.? Do you know that the money you pay is used against the P.A.P. Government, the present Government? You are paying money out of your wages and allowances to the Central Control of S.A.T.U. for the purchase of paper for making banners, and for anti-Malaysia purposes? You may not be aware that you are being used to stab the people who have tried to help you in your fight now." Mr Speaker, what has been said in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is true. There are people and political Parties who try to misinterpret our motive today. Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown has spoken in this Assembly. 5.37 p.m.

He has said that he does not like the formation of Malaysia. I wish to know - and this question can be answered by his friends - have they tasted whether the formation of Malaysia is good or bad? If they want to know whether it is good or bad, then let it be formed. With its formation, I believe the fate of the Central Control of the Barisan Sosialis today will be certain. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not look upon them as henchmen of the countries I have mentioned just now, but if they want to go against our wishes, then they can say that Malaysia is bitter, because in the future we know that the responsibility for defence would be changed. Now the defence of the people of Singapore and the defence of the people of the Federation are different. Let us try not to do anything which will give a bad impression of our good intention. I know well the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis Members. I would like to explain in this Assembly. When I was about to have discussions with the Singapore Maritime Employees' Federation at a meeting, I recognised who the Barisan Sosialis members were. They were arrogant. They ignored us. They did not want to speak to us. Are these the people who are in control? I am surprised why they have such an attitude. But we went with open hearts in order to discuss matters which concerned the workers. But they showed their true colours. They were angry and they did not care for us. They wanted to discuss between themselves and the employees only. And this is their attitude, which I know. It has been an example to me and I must be careful about what I do when I meet such people. I hope we have noted the true character of the Central Control of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully agree with the findings of the Prime Minister on the wishes of the Member for Anson in order to inquire into the position of the labourers, whether they want to know who will sit in the labour unions, people who wish to bring in foreigners, or people who are working against this ideal. It is time that this matter be settled Mr Deputy Speaker. I am rather concerned now about the working of the S.A.T.U. group. As we know, the S.A.T.U. group, as published in the Working Paper, have not been registered, and since they have not been registered, why have the Government given them the opportunity to exist? I am surprised. It is not that I want to defend the P.A.P. Government at this time. With regard to the accusation thrown against the P.A.P. Government, namely, that democracy does not exist in this country, it is clear that the body which has not been registered is, according to the law, wrong. The law says it is wrong, but it is allowed to carry on. Does that mean that democracy is non-existent? I therefore hope that the group that has been twisting all the statements should be careful. I say this because there will be a time in the future when I believe a change will take place in the labour movement; because the workers today, whether Chinese or Malays, are still influenced by a number of people who can speak, and who speak so that they can influence these people. But the time has conic, I believe, when especially the Malays will rise - I am not bringing up the question of communalism - but they are aware that they have a duty :o participate in the controlling body of the labour movement both in Singapore and throughout the Federation. We cannot allow this opportunity to pass to a number of adventurers who try to make use of us for purposes of election or to grab power. There is current today a new sense of awareness and we bear it in our bodies. It is not that we do not believe in centralised control of trade unions, but we do not want them to use this opportunity for bettering their own position or for any other motives. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is as far as I can say here which can be of guidance to the people concerned. Coming back to the question of housing, I feel proud and satisfied with the ability of the Government to increase the number of houses in the course of its administration of the country. I am not able to state, but I hope the Government will be able to clarify when the Malay Settlement will be divided and allocated to the people who are entitled. In addition, I appeal to the Government to consider the position of the people who under the present policy of Government cannot get aid from the. Social Welfare Department. Until today the people of Singapore who do not have families do not get aid from the said Department because they do not have dependants. But we should remember that they are the people of Singapore just the same, and are entitled to receive aid when they are unemployed. Further, I appeal to the Government and to the respective Ministries to review the position regarding the traders and hawkers, especially roadside operators alt night markets. Within the Kembangan area, Jalan Eunos, the road is very small, and on every Friday night when there are night markets all traffic along that road cannot go through safely, and it is very dangerous. I hope the authorities concerned will take this as an example so that all night markets are allotted fixed and proper places where there is not much traffic in order to avoid accidents and danger. There are also cases which I have brought to the Ministry concerned, namely, that hawkers' unions demand coffee money from hawkers who cannot afford to pay it. Because of this, the opportunity for those people to hawk is nil. I believe this matter is within the knowledge of the respective authorities, and I hope they are able to help all parties concerned. Further, on behalf of the Opposition group, I am satisfied with the Government once again in that they have fulfilled 100 per cent of the appeals that come from my constituency, and although I am responsible to my constituency I appeal to the Government particularly not to forget other constituencies, although those constituencies represent Parties that the Government do not like especially in Kampong Ayer Gemuroh and Padang Terbakar where all essential requirements are very little. I hope the Government can look into this matter so that the residents in that area can be said to have their own father and will get full attention. That is more or less all that I can say in this Assembly. I also thank the Government for taking a great interest in matters which I have brought to its notice, including the appeals of the people of Kampong Amber, where the Ministry of National Development has already carried out its work satisfactorily. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have one matter with which I am not satisfied. That is the question of building drains in Kampong Kembangan. I find there are about 200 houses or families who will be the victims. I hope the Government will try to carry out other plans to deepen the existing drains so that the occupants of the houses who have taken the trouble to build these houses are not inconvenienced and that their houses will not be demolished, because that would become a big problem both to me and to the Government. 5.53 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there are one or two points which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. The Prime Minister in his speech said that private enterprise, so far as building in Singapore was concerned, was estimated by the Government to contribute at least 6,000 units per annum during the course of the ensuing year. And I wish to bring to the notice of the House a problem which intensive private development is bringing about in Singapore, and, unless it is checked, will lead to great difficulties in the future. Private development now confines itself to building multi-storey flats to a very large extent and selling each of these flats to people in the middle income groups. Now, it raises a problem of management of these houses, a problem of ownership in the future, and the problem of maintenance and upkeep of these flats and of the block in which the flats are situated. The Housing Board builds these flats and lets them out to private individuals. But while they are let out, the Housing Board sees to it that the passages and stairways are properly maintained, lighted and looked after. So far as these private flats are concerned, they arc now being sold by the hundreds to the middle income group people. The private developer is a private limited company. The point I wish to stress, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this: that these are all private limited companies, and in the conveyances which they give to the purchasers of these flats, these companies give certain covenants, certain undertakings to the purchasers of these flats, such as that they would maintain the stairways, see that they are lighted, that they are repaired and so on and so forth, which makes it possible for the flat-dwellers to enjoy living in those flats. Now it has already come to our notice that some of these private limited companies which started, say, five or six years previous to today have wound themselves up. They have wound themselves up and disappeared from the scene and have ceased to be legal entities. `The net result now is that some of the people who bought the houses from them do not have anybody against whom they can proceed in case the covenants they have undertaken to carry out are not implemented. But if it is a private person, you can either go against him or against his estate. But if it is a private limited company and once it goes into liquidation, it ceases to exist, and there is nobody against whom you can proceed. I bring this problem to the attention of Government who are now taking a liberal view with regard to houses which are owner-occupied. I think one of the results of that attitude is going to be an even more intensive development of flats by private companies with a view to idling them to the middle income groups. My own view, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that these private limited companies which go in for housing development should be treated in a different category, and separate legislation should be brought about whereby they could be kept under proper control, so that these middle income group purchasers, in five or ten years' time, will not be left high and dry with their stairways rotting, their roofs leaking, and all the covenants not being able to be implemented. That is the first point I thought I should bring to the notice of Government. The next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, on which I wish to address the House is the question of the water supply of Singapore, on which the Prime Minister spoke. The Prime Minister has indicated in his speech that during the last three years there has been an increase of 9 million gallons in the consumption of water, so that the yearly increase at the moment is 3 million gallons. The Prime Minister has given figures that the consumption of water today is 73 million gallons per day. He has also indicated that so far as Tebrau is concerned, he can get a maximum intake into Singapore of 45 million gallons per day, and that the rest of the water supply for every day conies from the impounding reservoirs. He has also indicated that in the impounding reservoirs there is only 54 per cent of the maximum supply. The position, to my mind, is a very serious one, particularly as the Government is pressing on with the building of flats. The more flats that are built, the more water will be consumed. And if the Government builds another 12,000 houses, as they say they will, then the consumption will most assuredly rise beyond 3 million gallons next year. If the scheme in Jurong materialises in the way the Minister for Finance hopes that it will, and if the steel mill in Jurong goes up, in the way we hope it will, the steel mill alone will account for one million gallons per day. The Government has suggested that it wil1 build some sort of a natural reservoir in Jurong. How far that project has progressed Government has not informed us, although schemes are afoot, it seems. Whether the reservoir will be in readiness to receive the steel mill is another matter. All in all, Mr Deputy Speaker, the position with regard to the water supply is a very grave one, and I regret that the Government does not seem to be unduly worried about the position, because it seems to be taking its time over augmenting our water supply. It has started a scheme at Scudai, and it says that under the Scudai scheme it hopes to get in about 15 million gallons per day. It says that that river will be brought into operation, so far as our water supply is concerned, towards the end of next year. Now, the position with regard to Scudai and Tebrau is this: these two rivers are tidal rivers and they are subject to a dry weather flow and a wet weather flow. When the Prime Minister says he can get a maximum of 45 million gallons per day, I think what he really means to tell the House is that from the river at its wettest, he will get 45 million gallons per day. But when Tebrau is at its driest, he cannot get more than 10 million gallons per day. Similarly Scudai is also subject to a dry and wet weather flow, and when it is at its driest, he cannot get from it more than 5 million gallons per day. Assume a very dry season, such as we might run into in the course of the next few months, the result will be that even with Tebrau and Scudai working to its full dry weather capacity, we could have a water shortage in Singapore, and we will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret very much that the Government is not pressing on as fast as it can with the Johore River scheme, and I regret that the first intake from the Johore River, according to the Prime Minister, will not be until the year 1967, which is 4 years away. Unless and until we can get to Johore as quickly as possible, we shall always be faced with the danger of a water shortage in Singapore, Nobody likes to predict ill, but, unless we get to the Johore River as quickly as possible, we will always be faced with the danger of a shortage of water supply during the dry season in Singapore. The dry season in Singapore also coincides with the dry season in the south of Johore where these two rivers are situate. The last point I wish to raise, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a matter raised by the leader of the Barisan, the Member for Queenstown. Sir, he has indicated to the House how strongly he and his Party support the parliamentary system which we have adopted in Singapore. One of the basic things on which parliamentary democracy rests is that we must accept the verdict of the majority. Let us fight as hard as we can until that verdict is delivered, but once the verdict has been delivered, then, however hard we might have objected, how' ever hard we have fought against it, I think we must accept the verdict. On the question of the referendum, on the question of Malay sin, the Barisan were entitled to fight as hard as they could, and they fought very hard indeed. They have lost the battle, they have last the fight. And I do ask the Member for Queenstown and his followers in this House - that the verdict having been delivered by the people of Singapore after a hard contest, as good parliamentarians, they should now accept the verdict, and not lead Singapore to bloodshed. 6.08 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, both the Government Party and the Opposition Parties have expressed their views, if they say that there is no democracy in Singapore, no freedom of speech, then they are blind or they are out of their minds. Let us examine the arguments put forth by the Opposition Parties. Of course, they come from the various different Parties, but all of them have a lot of grouses, hut when we ask them to do something, they cannot do it. Therefore, they are forced to make use of this Assembly as a forum to voice their grouses. The contents of their speeches are nothing more than abuses or boasting. We have a strange phenomenon today among the Opposition Parties - there is one common feature. In all their speeches they have not been able to deny that the P.A.P. have done something for the people and they have not been able to deny that we, the P.A.P., have done a lot for the people. This is worthy of our attention. Why do they not say the P.A.P. is incompetent? Why do they not accuse the Government of not building bridges, roads, schools and hospitals for the people? Why can they not, on behalf of the people, put forward constructive schemes to better the lot of the people? Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, we know that the Members in the Opposition Parties have all along professed to be the representatives of the people but they have not suggested any constructive schemes to improve the lot of the people. There are some neighbouring countries which claim to be progressive, that they are trying to raise the standard of living of the people by providing them with food and clothing. Now, when we compare Singapore with these countries, we can see that the standard of living of the people here is far, far higher than it is there. Opposition Party Members have seen the achievements of the P.A.P. That is why they have not been able to criticise the work of the Government. They know full well that all the schemes carried out by the Government are aimed at trying to improve the living standard of the people. The building of bridges and repairing of roads will go towards improving their living standard. The Members in the Opposition are blind to all these facts. What the Government has been doing is to bring a better life to the people. If the Government builds another outpatient clinic, this will benefit the people not only in the urban area but also in the rural area. People who are ill can get treatment from this clinic, and they will save a lot of time and energy. Now with more police stations the crime situation has improved. As the elected Government, we have many problems to solve. If you do not talk about bringing electricity and water to the people, you have to solve the problem of employment for the people. In 1961 the Government started carrying out the Four-Year Development Plan. When these projects are completed, in conjunction with the other small-scale industrial projects, they will bring more employment opportunities to the people. They know that we the P.A.P. have done a lot. They cannot deny all these facts. They cannot convince the people that we have not done anything for them. They are only capable of boasting. With sweet words and sweet slogans they are trying to deceive the people. They say that we are not anti-colonialists and imperialists. They are able to make speeches of this nature. They also blame the Government for the shortage of water. Can we turn the anti-colonialist slogan into something that we can eat? Can we live on slogans alone? There is one paragraph in the speech of the Member for Queenstown yesterday which merits our attention. He said the open rebellion in Brunei will lead to guerilla warfare. Now, if we study closely his speech, we will know that he has shown his true colours. Although they have been quiet after the referendum, today they are trying to ape the cocks in Bali Island, to recover their past glory. Only people with foresight can conceive the idea of Malaysia. Only people who have the interests of the people at heart will appreciate the importance of national unity. The Member for Queenstown has warned the people that a constitutional struggle is possible only if there are avenues for a constitutional struggle, otherwise the people will resort to other means. The people will clearly understand what he is talking about. Does he want the people to shed blood in the so-called revolutionary war? I think the Member for Queenstown should accept the advice given by our Prime Minister. Today the situation in Singapore is stable. You are in a very desperate position now. People have not supported you, if you are trying to become the stooges of foreign powers, then one day you will regret what you are doing now. The territories which are going to form Malaysia have common features, that is, they are of a common ethnic group, having the same racial groups. The establishment of Malaysia will mean the death of colonialism. People in the five territories realise that it is only when they are united that they can survive and form a strong nation. The Member for Thomson has accused us of doing all sorts of wrong things, but we are only leading our country towards a prosperous society. 6.18 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we seem to have forgotten that this is a motion of thanks to H.E. the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I for one find no difficulty at all in saying thank you to him for his courtesy in coming here, in saying "thank you" to him for the manner - the dignified manner - in which he discharged a most difficult duty. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I listened to him, my admiration grew for the iron discipline and the dedication to duty which permitted him to read through reams of praise for pigs and the P.A.P.

As a policy document, Sir, the speech which was prepared for him to read - the last speech the P.A.P. will ever prepare - was the crowing of a cock on a dunghill. The dishonesty of that policy speech lies not only in its drooling self-praise, hut is particularly noticeable for the remarkable omission to explain the major inroad into the rule of law in the arrest of 133 persons during a period which, according to the policy statement of the P.A.P., was characterised by "peace and tranquility". That is their phrase. Mr Speaker, the arrests were under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, a measure passed to meet emergency situations endangering the security of the State. I am not interested in scoring a debating point. I know it might be amusing to go back to Hansard in the days when the Government were in the Opposition and to quote their many statements about the P.P.S.O. and what a dreadful measure it was that I had introduced. Nor is it necessary to go back to the days when in 1959 the Government extended the life of the P.P.S.O. by five years - this Government, the P.A.P. Government, together with the gentlemen and the ladies on the Barisan Sosialis side, and a little to their left where the leader is missing. It is ironic, Sir, that these people who supported the extension and - never mind the extension, it may have been necessary and probably was - who supported the removal of the protection of the Judges from it, now complain of suffering under it. If they had had the respect for human beings that was embodied in that Ordinance, they would not have been screaming today about the abuse, as in fact it is an abuse, of these provisions. Today, Sir, you have been told blatantly that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which was intended for emergency situations, is being used in a period of peace and tranquility. What is the excuse for this action? There is an indirect reference in the policy statement to the "decision of the Internal Security Council to remove persons active in a Communist united front conspiracy." Mr Speaker, that is a cowardly phrase. Constitutionally it is the duty of this Government to govern in Singapore and decisions under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance are decisions of the Government. It is true that under our Constitution the Internal Security Council has power to issue orders to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. That power was not exercised, Mr Speaker. There was no order from the Internal Security Council. The order came from this Government, and it is cowardly to seek to hide behind the skirt of the Internal Security Council. You will no doubt remember how I foresaw just this type of manoeuvre when I fought the provisions of the Internal Security Council in the Constitution many years ago. I have read the statement issued by the Internal Security Council, and the most interesting part of it is that nowhere is there any direct indication or allegation of a threat of imminent violence; nowhere in that document, and, consequently, Mr Speaker, no right to exercise emergency powers for an emergency situation.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

Point of order.

Sir, there is a motion; the next motion will deal with this particular subject. I wonder if it would not be in order for the Member for Anson then to deal with this matter rather than on a broad motion on a general statement of policy of the Government?

I was listening to the Member for Anson very carefully. I think he is just mentioning this in passing at the moment, but if he is going into details, I would suggest that the proper time would be when the Prime Minister moves his motion.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am obliged that this issue has been raised. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. I do not enjoy finding myself between the cross-fire of abuse hurled between the P.A.P. and the Barisan. I have studied the motion succeeding this and it is not to my liking. It seeks to make heroes of persons many of whom have been a clot on the Constitution. I submit that there is matter in the policy statement and there is omission in the policy statement sufficient to justify me to raise these issues without seeking to adumbrate them in detail. I shall not trouble you with a marathon speech, but it is my intention - and I would not like to camouflage it - to deal both with the inadequacy of the reasons for this massive misuse of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and for the dreadful conditions to which these persons, whatever their political views may be, have been subjected. They are parts of the general policy of the Government and I can assure you I will not weary you with detail. So, might I have your permission, Mr Speaker?

I have indicated that the hon. Member is perfectly in order if he touches on this matter in a broad aspect but he should try and avoid details; details can always be discussed in the next motion.

I am much obliged, Sir. Mr Speaker, there is a phrase in this policy speech which gloatingly speaks of merger and Malaysia as being the magic dissolvent of the Communist threat. I wish that were true. But I say it is but an act of cowardice of trying to pass the buck. There will be no solution to the issue of attracting the loyalty of a vast segment of the population in Singapore to the traditions of democracy and to a sense of unity within ourselves and within Malaysia except with the people of Singapore. If we, the people of Singapore, do not find the solution, Kuala Lumpur will not be a great help. Sure they can arrest; so can this Government, as it has proved, arresting people and calling them subversives. Mr Speaker, there are times when it is necessary to take sharp measures for one's health, but there are times, as one does in a case of surgery, when sharp measures can kill the patient, not cure him. It is easy to call people subversives, to damn them as Communists. Mr Speaker, I know myself that I am as Communist as the Pope, but that has not prevented the Government and, its stooges, it has not prevented malice, from seeking to paint me red. I speak from experience. We have heard the Government seek to connect the ghastly tragedy of that criminal folly in Brunei as an excuse. An hon. Member: You supported them.

Mr Speaker, you see, I am glad you are elsewhere engaged. Their falsehoods, their dishonesty - oh, but why talk of it, we are accustomed to it every day. The Workers Party issued a statement soon after the Brunei revolt condemning it in no uncertain terms, and it was published for a change; but two of the Workers Party members, who are no friends of mine - at least not politically - find themselves amongst the detainees. They were not at any time publicly or otherwise associated in supporting the Brunei Revolt. Mr Speaker, the tragedy of Singapore is that we have inherited the results of the omissions of the Imperial Government in the field of education, seeking not to have income tax so that the over-worked expatriate may have enough profits and his directors at home may have enough cream. We had no education policy other than the policy of having a few English-speaking clerks for the commercial machine, and a few Malay peons; and therefore the vast Chinese community had to fall upon its own resources through charity, to give education to its own youth. A youth that has been brought up to Chinese language naturally seeks and is inclined towards mainland China for its cultural patterns and for its thinking. At no time have we in Singapore really made an effort to give this youth hope and a meaning in the future. They are in a spiritual vacuum, Mr Speaker, and though it is regrettable, it is by no means difficult to understand. In that vacuum are to be found echoes of the ways of thought which are now current in mainland China and we find what I have termed "Peking Parrots", net Communists as such, not understanding what they are doing, not understanding the realities of the situation in their own territory, but "Peking Parrots" echoing weakly, without understanding, a line of thought which happens to be the vogue in mainland China at any material time, not with any malice aforethought, Sir, on the part of the vast majority, but because they have nothing else. Mr Speaker, far from being lost to us, I say with respect that we can fill that vacuum with the values of the ideals of democracy, with a sense of belonging to Malaysia, a sense of unity with the different races. We must act with patience and human wisdom, respect for human failings, recognition that it is through patience and perseverance that one can win through, not by abusing and maligning them perpetually. The Prime Minister in his hysterical efforts to save his Party from doom, which is its due, has divided Singapore into two - the subversives and "the rest". And that is the evil which they now make it necessary for us to inherit. An evil perpetrated for no other purpose than the survival of a political Party. Mr Speaker, we have failed, and I will say this for the P.A.P. - I will not say for all of them, but I will say for some of them - that there are and there have been efforts on their part - as there have been efforts on the part of others - sincere efforts to seek to bring an understanding of the democratic process, of the values and virtues of democracy, of the unity of the people of Singapore to the Chinese youth and the Chinese industrial workers. And it is true we have failed, but it has only been a short period that we have sought to bridge this gulf that divides us culturally and educationally. However often we fail, even more often must we try, because if we are to admit failure, like the Prime Minister, and divide Singapore into two unequal parts, that will be the end not only of those who are not of our way of thinking but it will also be the end of us - the people of Singapore. The conduct of this Government has not been helpful in attracting the loyalty and respect of this segment of our population to the democratic process. I say, Mr Speaker, that it is bad policy to keep attacking our Chinese youth and industrial workers as Communists. Not only is it bad policy but it is also not true. These are our fellow citizens and I am not prepared to condemn them and to slough them off and to cleave to the new peoples of Malaysia, throwing away these fellow citizens who form the major part of Singapore. Mr Speaker, it is astonishing too that the policy statement has not seen fit to contain at least some indication of the tragedy of the conditions of detention which have been imposed on these people, conditions which have been made public, and which I repeat, Sir, are far worse than anything perpetrated by the Imperial Government or by any previous Government. I do not intend to seek to shock you tonight. I received with a sense of hope yesterday the assurance from the Prime Minister that he would allow a delegate of the International Red Cross to investigate conditions. I know what that means, that by the time the delegate gets here or gets the invitation, conditions will have improved to an extent which will make it bearable for the detainees; and that is good enough for me. I do not seek to blacken faces that are already black or to show you hearts that you know are filth. I merely seek to assist, so far as it is possible for one human being, persons who, however much I may disagree with some of them in their political views, however strongly I resent the obstructive conduct of which they have been guilty, should be treated as human beings. We all err, Mr Speaker - that is not just a phrase. But to err does not make us animals, and not even animals should be subjected to the conditions which the P.A.P. have imposed, I am quite sure their boars of which the speech talks are better looked after than the detainees ---

Their what?

Boars, b-o-a-r-s. You will find it in His Excellency's - well, if the P.A.P. want me to refer to them in terms of one syllable, Mr Speaker, it is curious the emphasis which the P.A.P. have laid in this last major policy speech on pigs. You know, Mr Speaker, there is a maxim that water finds its own level, and I would suggest that the P.A.P. seem to have achieved theirs. I am delighted that they recognise their affinity with boars. Mr Speaker, finally I would suggest that you, not you - Mr Speaker; I will impute nothing personal - but I find it the height of impertinence that the policy speech of this Government should refer to the integrity of political leaders. What does it know of integrity, Mr Speaker? What does this Government which has perpetrated the Referendum Ordinance know about political integrity?

Order. The Member for Anson is becoming out of order by casting reflections on a decision of this House. This House has passed the Referendum Ordinance and he insinuates that the referendum is a fraud. He cannot do that. It has been decided by this House that the Referendum Ordinance should pass into law and it has passed into law.

May I say infamous law, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Order. There again, "infamous" also casts a reflection on a decision of this House. Perhaps the hon. Member will just say the Referendum Ordinance.

I did refer to the Referendum Ordinance, Sir. Passing on to the falsehoods that have been perpetrated in your presence in this House by Government Ministers in answering questions as to the conditions of detainees, Mr Speaker, these people have the impudence to talk of integrity! I say to you that it will take generations for Singapore to recover from the traditions of political dishonesty which the P.A.P. has displayed. Mr Speaker, much that I find repugnant in this policy statement, I find that nevertheless I am in no position to vote against it, because I am certainly not going to vote for the amendment. I, Mr Speaker, have no regret that the Government did not keep its promises. I never believed that it would. I can understand the Barisan Sosialis regretting and the Member for Hong Lim and his colleague regretting. They belong to the group. Maybe they were taken in. I was not taken in, Mr Speaker, Sir, I knew they would welsh and they have welshed. How can I regret what I anticipated? Mr Speaker, there will be no question of my voting for the amendment. As for voting against the motion itself, Mr Speaker, I mention this only in passing, since some Members seem to be unaware that it is an act constitutionally of discourtesy even to seek a division on the motion of thanks, that an attempt to defeat it should be made on any amendment before the House which may be acceptable to Opposition Members, but once those amendments have been defeated and the main motion is before the House, whatever one might think of the speech, let us remember that the motion is a motion of thanks to His Excellency and nobody should refrain from that gesture of thanks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim there have obviously a premonition that there is going to be a carcass soon and therefore they are both bidding for the same carcass, that is the carcass of the Barisan Sosialis. You will recollect, Sir, that yesterday, the Member for Hong Lim in his speech quite rightly avoided making any judgment on the achievements of the P.A.P. insofar as they were referred to them in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. He confined himself quite wisely to making an election speech in which he appealed to all groups, as the Member for Anson has done today, because this is the first time I have seen the Member for An-son in this Chamber disavowing the Barisan Sosialis for whom he has acted as adviser and back-room boy until now. But now he knows that the Barisan Sosialis is going down and that new masters are coming up and the Member for Anson has quite wisely made certain obeisance to the Federation Government. This comes from a person, Sir, who has in his lifetime lost three political parties which have been stolen from under his nose.

Three?

Three. An hon. Member: Four! [Interruption]

Sir, I remember the first occasion was the Progressive Party from which, I think, he was either ejected or he retreated - I do not know which. Then you will remember the occasion when he was in the Labour Party but prior to that there was talk of his forming a Socialist Party, and it eventually ended up as the Labour Front. Then he had the Workers' Party and we in this Chamber advised him that his Workers' Party was being divided. He refused to accept our warning that if he was not careful the carpet was going to be pulled away from under his feet. But now he has decided the best way to play this game is to make a bid for the remnants of the Barisan Sosialis if and when it comes a cropper. In fact, the Barisan Sosialis is quite well aware that if not the Member for Anson at least the Member for Hong Lim is making a bid to inherit the revolution and in fact in the recent issue of the Plebeian of 21st March, 1963, the Member for Queenstown in an article entitled "Socialism will be Victorious" said this: `As for the leader of a certain political party, Dr Lee said, like what Lee Kuan Yew said, this person was waiting for the arrests of all Left-wing leaders so that he could come out and pose as the Left-wing leader. Dr Lee said, "If the person [that is the Member for Hong Lim] is really anti-colonial, we will sincerely welcome him to our ranks."' The Member for Hong Lim is quite bright; he knows that if he joins their ranks he is also finished. Therefore, Dr Lee said: `But we will not tolerate him if his Party organ smeared and jeered at our comrades who are now under detention. We will attack all opportunists and support all anti-colonialists.' So, the Member for Anson, like the Member for Hong Lim too, is expounding the cause of the detainees. He has been engaged, I think, in a duel with my Political Secretary over the conditions of detainees, because if they stand up for the issue of detainees now, then they hope that when the Barisan Sosialis comes a cropper they will inherit the revolution. We can tell the Member for Anson that he who has not been able to look after two small political Parties will not be able to inherit the revolution from the Communists. So I would suggest to him that he should rather play the role of an observer and an independent socialist, as I hope he would be. Sir, I think neither the Member for Anson nor the Member for Hong Lim does really matter when the big battle starts, because I think the real force here is the Barisan Sosialis. Listening to the Barisan Sosialis amateur revolutionaries, I could not help noticing that they were this time like bewildered sheep bleating for their lost shepherds. At least on previous occasions when they had their battery of ghost-writers, they had scripts which at least made them sound like militant and confident cheep. The Member for Queenstown, in particular, gave a creditable performance of a leader who was leading his Party towards recognizable goals-that is in those days-even though the more perceptive among us knew that he was being remotely controlled. This time, I must however congratulate the Member for Queenstown for making a speech that sounded for the most part like the Member for Queenstown. Though the broad lines of policy have been laid down for him by others, I could not help feeling that interpretation of the lines was his own; it has all the hallmarks of authenticity; it was confused, illogical, groping and, of course, hilarious. For the most part, the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis Members consisted of repetitions of what they had said in this Chamber and outside for the last two years. We had, Sir, the same old arguments about phoney merger, about genuine reunification, about Malaysia being a British plot and about the dishonest referendum. I would have thought that after his hazardous and expensive trip to London and after having sat at the feet of Mr John Eber, the Member for Queenstown would have come out with something fresh, startling and original. But all that we had from the lost sheep of the Barisan Sosialis was that they confined themselves to re-opening an issue that had already been decided on by this Assembly and by the electorate. Yesterday, Sir, we heard angry complaints from the Barisan Sosialis that free speech was dead because this session of the Assembly was not long enough. But would this complaint carry much conviction with the people when an Assembly Session is used to re-discuss issues which have already been decided upon and repeat arguments which we have heard over and over again in this Assembly? However, before I go on to the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis Members, I would like to deal with some of the astonishing comments made by the parlour revolutionaries on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Both the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson dismissed as of no great consequence references to the number of houses, standpipes, roads, factories, schools, community centres and things of that kind which constitute concrete achievements. The Member for Queenstown found all these tangible achievements irritating. Because he could not deny the existence of schools, flats, standpipes, he was reduced to making a very remarkable observation. He said, "Take away the houses, the standpipes, the community centres and all that, and what have you got?" And he gave the answer, "You have got nothing." Of course, Sir, any school boy who has done any elementary mathematics can tell you that if you take away everything, then there will be nothing. But the same school boy could have pointed out to the Member for Queenstown that in fact you cannot take away houses, roads, schools, clinics and stand-pipes that have been built however much the Barisan Sosialis might try to wish them away. I can understand the irritation of the Member for Queenstown over such things as houses and clinics. I understand that his constituency is one of those areas where buildings and clinics are shooting up even as he tries to convince the people in that area that they are being oppressed by the P.A.P., that they are ill-fed, ill-housed and neglected and that only after the revolution, can people get more schools, houses and the good things of life. Similarly, the Member for Thomson dismissed all these concrete achievements as of no great consequence. In building schools, community centres, houses and the like, he said, the Government was only carrying out its obligations. But that is the point. Sir,If we are carrying out our obligations, then instead of denouncing the Government, the Barisan Sosialis should commend us and exhort us to build more houses, more schools, more roads, more clinics and, more factories. They should come forward with concrete and constructive suggestions on how the livelihood of the people can be improved still further. Instead, as we all know, the Barisan Sosialis tactics have been to hinder development projects as in the case of Toa Payoh and create an atmosphere of tension and crisis to ensure that no economic development takes place. You will have noticed, Sir, how irritated the Members for Queenstown and Thomson were by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's references to the atmosphere of calm and tranquility now prevailing in Singapore. This irritates the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist puppet masters for two reasons. The first is that this air of calm and tranquility should prevail after the recent arrest of Communists is a social embarrassment to them. The fact that the disappearance of prominent Communists, Communist-front men, should have been received so calmly by the people, and even with relief by the people, is a mortal blow to the Communist propaganda that they enjoyed the esteem, support and loyalty of the masses. So too in the case of houses, schools, roads and the like, the Barisan Sosialis have to deny the fact that there is calm and tranquility in Singapore. The second reason why they find references to calm and tranquility so irritating is that, so long as there is calm and tranquility, the pace of economic development, investments in business, industry and construction work generally would be accelerated, thus exposing the Communist argument that only after a Communist revolution can people's problems of livelihood be solved. They know that this thesis is false. They know that in a democratic socialist Singapore we are able to steadily improve the welfare of the people without imposing hardships, the terror and the intolerable burdens which are the inevitable preludes of Communist forms of reconstruction. Every house, every school, every standpipe, every factory and every road built under a non-Communist, socialist Government is one more nail to the Barisan Sosialis lie that only a Communist revolution can make life better for the people. The thesis that only a Communist regime can solve the livelihood problems of the people is obviously refuted by the steady and concrete achievements. Therefore, every time they see a flat, a standpipe, a road, they have now to wish them away. They cannot deny these achievements and, in fact, they made no effort to deny the existence of these achievements. All that the Barisan Members did was to claim, as the Member for Queenstown said, that if you disregard all these achievements, then there are no achievements worth talking about. Sir, from time to time, we, on this side of the House, have given free advice to Barisan Sosialis members. I know, they have stubbornly refused to heed such advice, presumably because they were free, but had they listened to our advice, they would not be in this sorry plight that they are today. Sir, I propose to give them another bit of advice which may possibly be the last bit of advice we will be able to give them. Anyway, Sir, having regard to the present state of neurosis and anxiety, this advice may well be disregarded. Nevertheless, the advice is this: do not underestimate the intelligence of the people of Singapore. They are not duffers and morons as the Barisan Sosialis discovered during the referendum. The people will judge the Government and forms of government not by oratory, not by promises of a pie in the sky, not by abstract talks of freedom, revolution, anti-colonialism, democracy and other verbal mishmash, but by what the Government does to make the day to day life of the people better. The Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson, fairly well-fed, well-housed, possessed of steady incomes, may think that things like houses, schools, stand-pipes, roads, factories, and so on, are trivial matters compared with the vague abstractions about anti-colonialism, genuine unification of Malaysia with Indonesia, with the revolutionary struggle and so on. But I think, Sir, the people of Singapore have reached sufficient political maturity to be able to distinguish between gentlemen who keep talking on and on about revolution and Utopia at some undefined future and those who, while not promising a workers' paradise or a Utopia in some future period, produce houses, schools, standpipes and so on, now. The Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors may not think very much about our housing achievements, but I can tell them - and they must have read - that international experts on housing who have visited Singapore have been impressed by what has been achieved so far and these experts, unlike the Barisan Sosialis, not only know more about these matters, but they have no political axe to grind one way or the other. In fact, Sir, the Member for Queens-town, not knowing how to minimise or refute the facts as laid out in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and not knowing how to attack us, went even so far as to blame the Government for the water shortage. In fact, his argument is even more hilarious. He argued that since a lot of rain fell on the tropical isle of Singapore he could not understand why there should be any water shortage - the implication presumably being that the wicked P.A.P. Government had somehow hoarded all this excess water and deliberately created a water shortage. Sir, another noticeable source of irritation to the Barisan Sosialis was television. The Member for Queenstown was more than usually distraught every time he referred to television which for want of some stronger term he described as a new craze. I think that in describing television as a new craze he is not showing the progressive outlook expected of good revolutionaries, because even in Communist countries including Moscow and Peking, television is described as the hallmark of an advanced society and as a useful mass media for increasing the cultural and intellectual level of the people. Therefore, by establishing television as in Moscow and in Peking, not to mention Jakarta, Singapore too is in the vanguard of progress, and I am a little surprised that the Barisan Sosialis who are so anxious to see Singapore in the vanguard of progress should manifest such hostility towards television. It is not that the Barisan Sosialis did not know that the Government had planned to introduce television. In fact some of the Barisan Sosialis Members while still in the Government had looked forward to the introduction of television with great eagerness. Now that television has been introduced, I would have thought they would have congratulated the Government for having realised their dearest wish a little bit ahead of schedule. However, I know why the Barisan Sosialis are a little bit anxious about television. It is one more mass medium - and a very powerful medium - with which to combat and circumscribe the Communists in the open encounter. We in the Government realise that there is nothing the Communists dread more than the open encounter, the open argument. During the past two years the argument, particularly over Malaysia and merger, was carried out with the Communists in the newspapers and radio. Members will remember how we invited the Communists and their front men to radio forums which at first they accepted with alacrity believing that here at last was a chance to put forward their case to hundreds of thousands of people. But the first encounter in which the Member for Queenstown participated proved to be such a disaster for the Communist cause that subsequent invitations to such forums were very reluctantly accepted and then finally, consistently rejected. With television, the Member for Queenstown knows full well not only will he be heard but seen as well. And to this extent, he knows that he will inflict twice and probably thrice as much damage to his cause as he was able to inflict by his radio appearance. That is why I thought he looked a little bit disconcerted yesterday when the Prime Minister extended an invitation for him to participate in a television forum. I advise the Member for Queens-town that he can do no better service to the cause of non-Communist socialist democracy than by appearing in a television forum and pleading the cause of the pro-Communist Barisan. Let me state here that the battle against Communism and anti-national forces is as much one of restraining their propensity to resort to violence as it is a battle of ideas. In the battle of ideas, mass media like radio, television are vital, and the Government intends to use them as effectively as possible to safeguard the democratic system as well as the security of Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors know that we can use this mass media to counter their propaganda effectively in this battle with the Communists. Recently, the battle over merger and Malaysia was largely a propaganda battle, sustained and relentless, but in the end, we showed that the non-Communist socialists can win this propagandas battle ---

Order. The Leader of the House wishes to move a business motion.

7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Notwithstanding the resolution of the Assembly on Monday, 8th April, 1963 -

A motion of this nature would really have needed notice, but it can be moved under the provisions of Standing Order 99 if this House assents, ff there is one negative voice, then the motion cannot be moved, is it the pleasure then of this Assembly that the motion be moved? No dissentient voice. I will therefore propose the Question. The motion is debatable. Question proposed. [No Member wishing to speak.]

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, Notwithstanding the resolution of the Assembly on Monday, 8th April, 1963-

Debate resumed. 7.20 p.m.

As I said, Sir, the battle against the Communists is a battle of ideas, and yesterday the Member for Queenstown paid unwitting tribute to the efficacy of the democratic propaganda against Communist propaganda during the Malaysia battle. He said that the Government was pressing ahead with plans to have more radios and T.V. sets in the rural areas because the blank votes were higher in the rural areas. This is a correct appraisal of the situation. In the urban areas, thanks to fuller coverage by radio, newspapers and Rediffusion, the open argument between the democratic forces and the Communists reached the ears of the ordinary men who, having heard both sides of the case, rejected the Communist case in favour of the democratic case. In the rural areas, however, Communist propaganda was pressed through such outfits as the Country People's Association and the Rural Dwellers' Association. The democratic case did not reach the ears of the rural people as widely as the Communist case, or rather Communist rumours and falsehoods. So the Member for Queenstown knows that once T.V. and radio are introduced into the rural areas as well, we can not only begin to nail down every Communist falsehood and rumour but bring home to the rural people the simple truth, that the democratic system can give them a better life. Therefore, this violent dislike for television and radio by the Communists means that we have done the right thing in establishing these new mass media and it would certainly be one big nail in the Communist coffin. The Barisan Sosialis may also be interested to know that towards the latter part of the year, a second television channel will be established, and next year a third channel and television, like other mass media, will be effective allies of democracy against the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist manipulators. Unable, therefore, to offer serious criticism of the achievements of the Government, the Barisan Sosialis leaders do not know what to do. All they can offer by way of improvement to the motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is an amendment "to truthfully and honestly ascertain the views of the people on their constitutional future". This is, I think, one of the most astonishing cases of collective amnesia that I have come across, because many of us will remember that some eight months ago, on 1st September, the people of Singapore went to the polls to decide on their constitutional future. They had to decide whether they wanted merger with autonomy in education and labour, or complete merger, or merger on terms available to the Borneo territories. I distinctly remember the Barisan Sosialis running around telling the people that all these three alternatives were bad and that the people of Singapore should show their disapproval of these three alternatives by casting blank votes. We all know that the outcome was that over 70 per cent of the people voted for alternative A, that is, merger with autonomy, and only some 25 per cent east blank votes. We know that the result came as a shock to the Communists, and also to the Member for Hong Lim, who also had been running around for reasons of his own asking the people to cast blank votes. The fact that the Communists got only 25 per cent of the votes exploded the Communist myth which they got even many non-Communists to believe, that the Communists had unassailable influence over the masses of Singapore. This myth of the mass influence of the Communists was often used to neutralise the non-Communists with the threat that if they openly opposed the Communists, then they would be dealt with when the Communists won the next general election. So the fact that the Communists were able to influence only 25 per cent - and even that percentage must be shared with the Member for Hong Lim because he also campaigned for blank votes; so if we give him 5 per cent, then at best the Communists were able to influence only 20 per cent of the electorate to follow their line. And as a result of the explosion of this myth of Communist mass influence, today more and more people are prepared to stand up to the Communists. The power of Communist intimidation has been considerably weakened as a result of the exposure of this myth of Communist mass influence. Even more disastrous for the Communists has been the impact of this defeat on the weaker of their Communist supporters. These weaker of their Communist supporters, these weaker comrades, had trailed after the Communists in the fond hope that they were on the winning side, that they were with a Party which had the majority of the masses behind it. But now the Party which could only mobilise 25 per cent of the electorate, and that by and large from the rural areas, could no longer hold the old fascination for the weaker followers of the Communist cause. So, therefore, one myth having been destroyed - the myth of Communist mass influence - it became necessary for the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis in the interest of its own survival to create yet another new myth to repair the damage and prevent demoralisation among their dwindling supporters. Therefore, the new myth is now being developed that the defeat that the Communists suffered at the referendum was illusory and that they, in fact, had the masses behind them. The myth, as propagated by the Barisan Sosialis, is that the referendum was dishonest and rigged. In fact, Sir, you will remember that hilarious moment yesterday when the Member for Queenstown drew attention to the results of the two Gallup polls conducted in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer by Barisan Sosialis and Communist supporters or dupes in the Nanyang University and the Singapore University. The referendum in which some 600,000 voters participated, he dismissed as unrepresentative. The results of that referendum, he dismissed as unrepresentative of public opinion. But the two Gallup polls conducted by pro-Communist students and dupes supervised by Communists and limited to a few thousand selected subjects in these two areas are now held forward seriously as evidence that these two Gallup polls proved that the Communists had a vast majority of the people behind them. Apparently in these two Gallup polls, well over 90 per cent of the people cast blank votes, implying therefore that the 25 per cent blank votes in the referendum was not truly representative of the people. Surely. Sir, the Member for Queenstown, who is a fully grown adult male, does not expect either this Assembly or the people to take what he says seriously. This business of a private Gallup poll being more reliable than a nationally organised referendum may go down well among the infants who formed the large proportion of the crowd at the Barisan Sosialis rally held a few weeks ago at the Badminton Hall. But surely, Sir, the Member for Queenstown must be on the verge of a mental breakdown if he expects adults to accept this thesis, that his own Gallup poll is more reliable than the nationally organised referendum. Anyway, Sir, the Member for Thomson suggested that the referendum was rigged. If the Barisan Sosialis really believe this, then they could very well have taken the matter to Court, produced the evidence and set aside the referendum. But as far as I know, Sir, they have not done so. I know they made art attempt just before polling day to get the Supreme Court to restrain the Referendum Superintendent from exercising his powers, but the argument was so unconvincing that the Court rejected their plea. But, I think, Sir, there is one authority whose testimony about the honesty, the regularity of the referendum, no single member of the Barisan Sosialis can question. And that authority is none other than Mr Lim Ching Siong. On the night of the 1st of September after polling had closed, Mr Lim Ching Siong was asked by Pressmen to comment on the polling, and this is what he said, and I quote from the Sunday Times of September 2, 1962: `Said Mr Lim: "We are sure the majority of the people have cast blank votes in protest against the dishonest referendum."' Now, Sir, if Mr Lim Ching Siong had thought that the referendum had been rigged or in any way tampered with, he would not have said so categorically that he was certain that the majority of the people had cast blank votes. If the Barisan Sosialis leaders had thought that the balloting had been so rigged that it would have precluded the people from casting blank votes, the Communists would not have got their followers to camp outside Badminton Hall that night to celebrate a possible victory. If the Barisan Communists had thought that the referendum had been rigged, they would not have waited until the very early hours of the morning to watch the ballot papers being counted and the results announced; nor would they, if they had believed that the balloting had been rigged, have asked for a recount and then scooted off from the Badminton Hall immediately after the counting had begun. Sir, the Communists know that the referendum was fairly held. The only trouble is that they really believed their own myth, that their influence over the masses was unassailable. So when they got only a 25 per cent vote which was worse than even their most pessimistic prediction, they knew that the end had come. What angered them even more, I think, Sir, was that the Government had at the last moment decided to accede to the plea that they had made that the blank votes should be counted separately. I think they would have given their right arm that night for the Government to have decided to count the blank votes with the other votes because then they could have gone out and said, "Yes, you know. But the blank votes exceeded all other votes." But now, once having declared the blank votes separately, it was shown with mathematical accuracy that at their best, the Communists could only muster about 20 to 25 per cent of the electorate, and that from the rural areas where our propaganda had not been able to reach the rural masses. This fact, the realisation that they no longer had the support of the people, has pushed the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis into a new and dangerous course. They knew that they had lost the constitutional struggle in Singapore and that with the advent of Malaysia their chances of winning power constitutionally were gone for good. So they decided on violence. The only way they could halt merger and Malaysia was not by a constitutional struggle in Singapore, but by violence; and the battlefield of violence was first Brunei. Sir, I do not wish to go into details about the involvement of the Barisan Sosialis members and Communists in the armed revolt that took place in Brunei. There is a White Paper on the subject. I think there is a motion when Communist Barisan Sosialis connection with the violent revolt in Brunei would be spelt out. However, the fact to be noted is that the Singapore Communists knew that they could no longer rely on the people of Singapore to fight their anti-Malaysia and anti-merger battle and that the Singapore Communists had now to rely on Azahari and foreign volunteers to fight their anti-Malaysia battle for them. The Singapore Communists and the Barisan Sosialis hoped that the violent struggle in Brunei would then spread to Singapore, and that from Singapore they could provide fuel and support for the violence in Brunei and other parts of Malaysia. If the violence which started in Brunei could spread to Singapore, the Communists hoped that this would give them a chance of imposing, by force, what they could not get the people of Singapore to do by constitutional means, that is, to break up Malaysia. Fortunately, Sir, the Brunei revolt fizzled out, and so there was one last hope for the so-called anti-colonialists. Just as they went to see certain colonialists in the U.K. Commission to help to break up merger, to come to a deal. So this time, after the revolt in Brunei had fizzled out, they were banking on the fact that relations between Malaya and Indonesia would worsen so that the confrontation would pass from a passive to an active stage when they hoped foreign volunteers and armies would invade Malaysia and help to break up Malaysia. It was when the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists not only openly supported violence but were also engaged in playing the treacherous role of supporting intervention by foreign volunteers that the Internal Security Council decided that the Communists now constituted not anti-colonialists but fifth columnists in our midst. These Communists were arrested not because they were our political opponents. We tolerated them for two years. We gave them every opportunity to say or do what they liked. So it was not because they were our political opponents but because they had become fifth columnists - to sell Singapore and Malaysia not only to racketeers, "bums and liars" like Mr Azahari, and like Osmena who says he is prepared to do a deal on Malaysia for something like $10 million. But worse than that. The Barisan Sosialis have become stooges of foreign powers and foreign groups like the Indonesian Communist Party. It is because the people know of this role that they are playing today - that the Barisan Sosialis are not anti-colonialists - that the detention of over 100 Barisan Sosialis supporters has not brought about a single reaction from the people. We know for a fact, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis leaders on the day some of them were arrested, tried to get some of the unionists like those in the Singapore Bus Workers' Union to go on strike. But this time the people of Singapore had come to know the real role of the Barisan Sosialis - that they were treacherous fifth columnists. Therefore, when the Barisan Sosialis leaders were locked up, there was not a tear shed. That is why unlike before, in 1956-57 when the Communists were arrested, there was reaction because they managed to wangle into the real anti-colonial front and pose as anti-colonial martyrs. But today they stand condemned as traitors to our country and to our people. So however much they tried to mobilise support for the 100-odd people who had been detained, they could not get a single protest meeting. They held a protest meeting at the Badminton Hall where over 40 per cent of those who attended were school children. In fact, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon made an observation - over 40 per cent were school children, the same kind of school children whom they used during the Malaysia debate as a cover to precipitate conflict between the police and school children in order to work up indignation. At that protest meeting the same school children were there, so much so that the Member for tipper Serangoon said, "Well, friends, at this meeting we can see very young people. It is only the old people who support the Government." What he meant was that they could fool only infants. And perhaps there will come a time, Sir, when at a mass meeting of the Barisan Sosialis we would see hundreds of perambulators, because they would have stopped deceiving school children of 15 and 16 years of age and would have to deceive children of 5 and 6 years.

From the kindergartens.

So that is the reason, Sir - not because they are our political opponents, since we were prepared to tolerate them - but because the moment they entered into a conspiracy with foreigners and racketeers to sell out Singapore, they had become the stooges of racketeers and foreigners. It was then that the I.S.C. felt that the time had come to call a halt to people who were using the democratic system to stage not a national revolution or even a Communist revolution but to sell out Singapore to foreign elements. Sir, we had confirmation yesterday of the real role of the Barisan Sosialis - that they are no longer a national Party. We always said they were anti-national, but nobody believed it. But yesterday the Member for Queenstown came out with a startling statement. After nearly two years of saying that at least the Barisan Sosialis supports the concept of Malaysia, he yesterday argued that there was now no affinity between the Borneo territories, Singapore and Malaya. He said that the Borneo territories have nothing in common with Singapore and Malaya, but that they should instead forge a link with Indonesia. That fits in with another statement which they denied - a report made over a year ago in the Bintang Timur, a Communist paper, that Lim Ching Siong had said that he preferred a merger of Singapore with Indonesia to a merger of Singapore with the Federation. When the report was made known, some of their representatives here denied that such a statement was made. But now it fits, in again with a remark the Member for Thomson made in this Chamber. He said he opposed Malaysia unless Malaysia included Indonesia, which was, he said, the heartland of Malaysia. And the Member for Queenstown said further that Malaysia should exclude Singapore and Malaya, and the Borneo territories should be handed to Indonesia. So, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have now been reduced to being traitors, of acting as stooges of foreign elements. Their only hope today is for a real open conflict, a violent conflict between Indonesia and Malaya. They have a vested interest today in a warfare between the peoples of the two countries. Therefore, I would suggest that the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members have today ceased tot be representatives of the people of Singapore. They are not the representatives of those who elected them. They have become representatives of alien racketeers and of foreign Communist Parties. Today the communist position is such that they can only save their political skins by the betrayal of their country and their people to foreign racketeers amid by pleading in this chamber the cause of alien Communists. Therefore, I say it is the Barisan Sosialis who are today real colonial stooges - stooges of new colonial masters. This is the shameful state to which the Singapore Communists have been reduced, and they have been so reduced because they have underestimated the strength and the intelligence of the people of Singapore. Yesterday, the Member for Queenstown warned that blood would be shed if Malaysia was pushed through by 31st August. I would like to ask him: whose blood is going to be shed? If the blood that is going to be shed is that of the 14 Barisan Sosialis Members, well, that is their own business. But if they are planning to shed other people's blood, if they are planning to use school children, as they have done in the past, as cover tot protect themselves and get blood to flow, or use workers or other innocent victims, then let us tell them that the Government and the people are ready to ensure that if any blood flows, it will not be the blood of innocent people. Or, knowing full well the Barisan Sosialis tactics over Brunei, are they hoping for foreign volunteers to shed their blood for them, as the Brunei workers shed their blood to sustain the Barisan Sosialis? Obviously, what is quite clear is that the Barisan Sosialis are preparing to go down with a bang before 31st August. The threats of violence and bloodshed that have been uttered by Barisan Sosialis leaders from lime to time may be intended as a bluff to frighten the people, to show how tough they are. Well, if that is all that they are doing, we wish them good luck. But if they are contemplating, or their masters behind them are contemplating - one thing we are quite sure, the people who are manipulating them regard the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen as expendable material - to shed the blood of innocent people, then I warn them that they will not find this Government wanting in resolution and courage to deal with Communist violence and subversion. 7.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs expressed surprise and hurt that Members of the Opposition did not pay tribute or commend the P.A.P. Government for having done so much for the people of Singapore. May I ease his conscience by telling him that the P.A.P. Government have done so much and so well for the people of Singapore that when the general elections take place in 1964, they will be well and truly buried.

That is what you think.

Sir, they feel that they have done so much for the people of Singapore and yet they are worrying as to holding the by-election in Sembawang. Even after the visit by the Prime Minister, the by-election is still not in the books. It could be June, it could be July, it could even not be held at all. It is left to the P.A.P. Government - a Government, according to their own claim, that has done so much and so well for the people of Singapore! Sir, the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday, in moving the motion that is now before the House, said this - and I quote page 34 [col. 169] of the first copy of the first half of Hansard. He said this: 'We must never make the grave error of the last Government in believing that the neutralisation of a few united front activists could mean the end of the Communist capacity to organise and agitate when the time comes for elections. This has been a temporary setback for them in what is a grim long-term struggle for power.' Sir, talking of a grave error, I do not know what they mean. Perhaps it was a grave error for the previous Government to stand up to their responsibilities and declare that the action taken against the Communists was an action taken by the elected Government of Singapore, although the responsibility for internal security rested with the Chief Secretary who was a colonial official. We need not have to declare that it was our responsibility, but because we believed, and honestly believed, that the security of the people of Singapore demanded such an action on our part, we stood up and declared that it was on our own initiative that we put the Communists in gaol for the good of the people of Singapore. When we compare that - talking of a grave error now - the P.A.P. Government, under the Constitution: "Internal security is the responsibility of the Government," and yet, in the motion that is to come very soon, "No, no, net the Singapore Government, the Internal Security Council." Well, that could be a grave error. They are clever now; it is better for them to deny that they are responsible or that the responsibility rests with them. It was foolish for the Lim Yew Hock Government to say that they were fully responsible when they need not have to accept responsibility. So, on the one hand, you had a Government that need not have accepted the responsibility but accepted it, and, on the other hand, you have the P.A.P. Government that has to accept the responsibility, and denying it. It could be a grave error. Another grave error could be this. I think it was a grave error now, on reflection. It was a grave error that the previous Government did not arrest the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I would have done it if I had known that the Member for Tanjong Pagar consorted with the Plen in 1956 and 1957 - as confessed by him; a self-confessed collaborator with the Communists. If I had known, I would have taken him in. That was a grave error. That, I am prepared to admit, was a grave error. [Interruption] But next time, we will know how to correct the grave error. Now here again, the Minister for Culture said, "Oh, in 1956 when the silly Lim Yew Hock Government took action against the Communists there was a reaction. But now, peace and tranquility." Let me explain. In 1956 when we put the Communists in, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, using his position as a Member of the Opposition, became so irresponsible that he fought the battle of the Communists. At present, if you see the 14 men behind me, I am sure they themselves will admit that they cannot measure up to the stature of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is now the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, who was then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, was prepared to fight the cause of the Communists in order to win the battle, and to sit there as the Prime Minister. That is what he did. That was why there was so much trouble, because there was someone with ability who was prepared to sell the interest of Singapore for the interest of his Party and himself. At present, if these people were as capable as the Prime Minister, I think he would have a more miserable time, but for the present I do not think they could be that capable. At that time, was it not true, Sir, when I arrested these people, up jumped the Member for Tanjong Pagar, "Motion of censure"? Now he arrested them, but there is no motion of censure. And yet we are supporting him. We say his action was right. All we say is that he should have done it earlier. What he did wrong was in not doing it earlier and he allowed the interest of the people of Singapore to be jeopardised, because he wanted to play the game of "confrontation" - that is the word used by the Indonesians too, "confrontation" - and zugzwang. He wanted to fiddle and play a zugzwang confrontation while Singapore burned.

That is why you are still safe here, you know that.

I will not touch on the next motion. Action has been taken and we are waiting to hear why action has been taken. He will have to explain away ---

I thought we told you.

Order. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that we have had a period of comparative peace until now?

There is peace and tranquility. Peace and tranquility because the Opposition, apart from the Barisan Sosialis, are a really responsible Opposition. It does not believe in thumping their chests here, putting up motions of censure, calling the Government all sorts of names, and demanding all sorts of things. In due course, I shall be quoting all these things to the great Prime Minister who was then the great champion of the Communists in 1956 and 1957. I will touch on that later on, Sir, when he comes to the other motion. Sir, after the referendum, the Assembly went to sleep in September. Why did we go to sleep? Because the P.A.P. knew that they had nothing sensational to offer in a policy speech. Therefore, they said, "Let us wait until we can conclude an agreement with the Federation to join Malaysia, then we can reconvene the Assembly." If they had succeeded in concluding the agreement, their policy speech would have been a very stirring one, "We got this; we got that; we got everything for the people of Singapore." And why it took such a long time for them to succeed, for them to conclude that agreement? it was not because there was a deliberate delay on the part of, shall we say, the other party, but it was due to the cleverness of the Prime Minister, who is sometimes far, far too clever. He thought that it was a wonderful thing to negotiate in the Press. He told the Press first, "This is what I want to do. This is our stand," and lie left the Federation alone. It was because of that that hurt their feelings. You cannot negotiate important matters of that kind in the Press. Next time they should do it on television! No, Sir, because they did it, that caused the delay. That caused the other party to stand up and say, "If that is the way that man is going to do it, let us tell him a few home truths." And that is too bad. If he had not shown his cleverness but kept quiet and not talked as much as he wanted, thumped the table as much as he wanted in the Conference Room, things would have been solved by now. As it is, they have not solved it. Tomorrow he is going again tot talk and I wish him luck. But I bet they would have delayed the reconvening of this Assembly had it not been for the fact that His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has to visit Cambodia and go on his pilgrimage to Mecca. They were caught. Therefore they produced a policy speech. It is no policy speech at all. I can sympathise with the Government, and generally we extend sympathies to people who are going to die, or to people who are already dead and, to that extent, I extend our sympathies to the Government. Sir, let me come to the speech of the Minister for Culture. He was saying how clever the P.A.P. was: beat the Communists in every round, at every count, the opening encounter; they won, yes, they won. They won because they are mare adept in the art of double-talk. Definitely double-talk, Sir! To take a very simple illustration. According to the Referendum Ordinance, blank votes should be counted together with votes for A. That was the law. But because they found out that, "Oh, blank votes, tidak apa, lah. Let us have some fun with the Barisan. Count separately." If they had meant to count separately, why did they resist an amendment from me and from the Barisan that blank votes should be declared separately? They dared not. Because they were not so sure. Because if blank votes were to be declared separately, it would turn the tables on them. But because they found that blank votes meant nothing to them, and they could use that to twist the tail of the Barisan, they said, "Count blank votes!" And they called a special sitting of this Assembly just to ridicule the Barisan. "Oh, you can have the blank votes in any way you want - B, C, or whatever you like. All the blank votes. Never mind, "whereas the law says blank votes mean A. In this double-talk, they are more adept, they are cleverer. The Barisan are poor innocents and do not come up to the standard of the Prime Minister. Sir, I would have exposed this - I cannot use the word "trickery" - double-talk had it not been that the cause was a sacred cause, Malaysia --- Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Tun Lim Yew Hock - and to beat the Communists, we would never lend ourselves to defend them and to break Malaysia. Because it was Malaysia, we kept quiet, and let them win the day. If they won the day at the expense of their poor ex-comrades, it is no loss to us. In fact, all I can say is, "Next time if they try to he too clever and say that ---"

They found a hatchet man.

A hatchet man is usually a very short man, Sir, not a man of stature. Maybe there is a hatchet man there. Sir, that is why they said, "Oh, this confrontation!" They are sure to win, because they are more clever. In fact, when the P.A.P. came in, what did they say? "Ban rock and roll!" But now they are indulging in a new dance - the twist. And they twist so cleverly that the twist is a first-class dance with the P.A.P. Government. Every time they twist. They know how to twist all the words they use. First-class double-talk! These poor ex-comrades of the P.A.P., left behind, do not know how to twist the P.A.P., whereas the P.A.P. keep on twisting their tail, and there is no response. It is not for me to try and save them from any dilemma that they are now in. But what I want to say to the P.A.P. is this, "Do not crow. The fact that you are able to get this quiet, this peace, was because men of responsibility side with you." If we had wanted to play politics in the way that they have been playing when they were here, there would have been merry hell. But that is not our way of looking after the interests of the country. We will support them on their motion. Sorry, Sir, I should not anticipate the debate on the next motion. We have said we are with them so long as they do the right thing. But at any time when they do the wrong thing, we will chop them. In fact, in this Assembly, after Sembawang, it will be the Alliance who will declare the funeral day of the P.A.P. and not the Barisan Sosialis who, now that all their ghost-writers have been taken away, do not know how to reply to all the twists and double-twists rind treble-twists of the P.A.P. Ministers. Before I forget, there is a wonderful twist here. Sir, you remember that when the P.A.P. came to power, they created Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries, and the question was asked, "What is a Parliamentary Secretary? What is a Political Secretary?" And the Prime Minister, in Hansard, Volume 11, No. 9, dated 2nd September, 1959, column 536, said: `The Parliamentary Secretary, as the term designates, carries the burden of the Minister's parliamentary duties, and to the extent that the Minister designates or delegates, he carries the burden of the Minister's ministerial duties.' That means he is a junior Minister in the Government. Sir, the Acting Minister for Labour stood up yesterday and said how good their policy is, how well they look after labour, and how much they allow trade unions to run on proper lines. I have said in this Assembly that a Parliamentary Secretary can never be a Secretary-General of any trade union, and what is worse is that a Parliamentary Secretary is the Secretary-General of a union of Government employees. And yet they talk of yellow unions, and all sorts of things. I do not know what to call it. I warned them. I told them that it could not be done. I did tell the Parliamentary Secretary concerned to declare his loyalty. He is either with the Government or with the workers. He cannot have dual loyalty. It has now happened. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture said, "The Minister for Finance is all wrong. The A U.P.E. will go on strike." The Minister for Finance said, "The Union is all rotten. It is bad. It should wait till 31st August before it presses on with its claim." There was so much argument that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture had a ballot taken and his union is going on strike. And that is not too bad. But what came out in this morning's Malayan Times at page 5, takes the cake. "Kandasamy Accuses P.A.P. Government". Sir, Kandasamy is accusing himself! "The Amalgamated Union of Public Employees yesterday accused the People's Action Party Government of cowardice, and Radio Singapore of slanting the news." Radio Singapore, Sir? Under his Ministry? He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. The control of Radio Singapore is under his Ministry. Radio Singapore distorts the news! I do not know. Well, maybe Kandasamy, the Secretary-General, accuses Kandasamy, the Parliamentary Secretary. This is what I mean by P.A.P. first-class twist and turn. They know how to twist. This is what he said. Fancy the Parliamentary Secretary saying that! This is terrible, Sir, if what he said is right. I hope somebody in the Malayan Tunes is not going to be put in under the P.P.S.O. This is what he said: `Apparently the Government has only the nerve and courage to fight and threaten the young girls of the midwifery service who are prepared to fight for their rights. They have no guts [I do not know whether it is parliamentary, but it is all right; it is in the newspapers] to tackle the postal and telecommunication workers.' That is what Kandasamy said. Now, I do not know whether Kandasamy will get the sack or whether he will sack the Government. I do not know. Maybe this is P.A.P. style which I find very difficult to understand. And then he accuses Radio Singapore of distorting news. He says that Radio Singapore tells all sorts of things: `Touching on Radio Singapore, Mr Kandasamy, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, whose portfolio includes Radio Singapore, said, "Radio Singapore has been announcing that only the unresolved claims would be directed to arbitration, thus giving the impression that the other claims are settled. If Radio Singapore would care to compare the Gazette notification [I would say if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture would care to compare the Gazette notification] and the strike notice, it would be very obvious that all claims, with the exception of the claims for the midwives, were directed to arbitration."' Sir, this is just putting the Government in a ridiculous position. A Parliamentary Secretary, in the words of the Prime Minister, shares in the ministerial responsibility of the Minister, and he shares in the responsibility of controlling Radio Singapore. And now he says that Radio Singapore is distorting his own news! Well, I would ask the Government to solve it the P.A.P. style. They can only solve it in the P.A.P. style! I do not know how to solve it myself. There are a few things here I would like to touch on. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech contains this little passage at column 5, "Because of the careful budgeting and the economy measures taken in 1959-60 --- ". What are the economy measures? An arbitrary slashing of salaries imposed on the civil servants! And they were told that if they started squealing they should go down on their bended knees and thank the gods that nothing worse had happened to them. At that time, there were 43 of them. Therefore, they put out their chests and said, "You had better take it, brothers, or you get worse." So they took it. Then when three of their numbers went over, and another 14 went over, they felt that something was wrong; so they restored the allowances of the civil servants but then they restored them only for a certain period. So there is a period between the time when the cut was imposed and the restoration - that little bit. Is the Government going to wait until election time and say, "Okay, civil servants! I give you back this salary cut of yours. You know that the P.A.P. is a very good Government. Vote, lah."? Do not do that. If the salary cuts had been restored because they were wrongly imposed, then come out into the open and say, "We did it. We thought that we were facing a deficit. But now we find that we have a surplus. Okay, we will repay it to you because that is rightly your money." It is most immoral to try and say that they have got a very good balance when they took that money arbitrarily from the civil servants! May I talk on housing? The Government are very fond of showing off. Look at what the Housing Board have done. We have done so much now. My questions have elicited, Sir, that insofar as housing is concerned, 3,098 units were vacant on 31st March this year. That is not such a big figure, but if we are to consider it in terms of money lost to the Housing Board - the amount I worked out is $165,510 a month - that is the revenue lost to the Housing Board, because these Units are vacant. That I am sure the Finance Minister would not and should not tolerate. Houses are built to be occupied. This is a waste of $165,510 a month. I did ask how many units were vacant for a year and more, how many were vacant for six months to a year, and from three months to six months. And the amount worked out - even on a very conservative estimate - is that they lost half a million dollars in rents last year, because the houses were unoccupied. Therefore, in order to get people to occupy those houses, what did they do? Yes, the Crawford Street reverted property suddenly occurred to them. Wonderful! If we could tell the residents of Crawford Street, "This is reverted property. We want to rebuild this area. Come on, go to the Housing Board houses." "Sixty dollars?" "Never mind, you pay. These are wonderful flats." The tenants there appealed to the Government that they could not afford a rent of $60 nor could they afford the rent of $40. But they were prepared to move. From the figures I got from the Minister for National Development, the Government, it would seem, are forcing people to take up Housing Board flats because they are empty, and because they are losing revenue. That is why they have told these people they are going to build. Why are they going to build? Where are they going to get the money to have a big housing estate around Crawford Street? You cannot do that. They have less than year before they are buried. What are they trying to do? They are trying to force people to go into Housing Board flats. Another point is this. In Henderson Road, that is Tiong Bahru Road, the previous much-maligned S.I.T. built houses prewar and rented those houses at $7.00 a month. After the war, I think the rent has been increased to $11.

00. The Government says to the occupiers of these houses - a few hundred of them - that the maintenance cost is very high and "You had better go; we have a lot of houses for you." They are forcing them to give up cheap houses to take up Housing Board houses that have been vacant for nearly a year in order to cover up their over-zealousness in housing, although there is less demand for it. The supply is more than the demand now. On the ground that the Trust flats in Tiong Bahru require a lot of maintenance and are most uneconomical, the Housing Board offer them new flats but at higher rent. But the tenants say, "If it is uneconomical, we will bear the cost of the maintenance." I do not know how they are going on with this. This is the kind of housing they have. In their desire to prove that they are doing something, they put up more houses than required. And half-a-million dollars has gone down the drain, Mr Finance Minister. There is the other point. The Prime Minister's visits to the rural areas. At the bottom of column 11: `The Prime Minister's visits to the rural constituencies have helped get closer co-ordination between Government planners and the rural people...'. This is what the Government says. What the people know is this. Before the prime Minister goes on his visits, the names of a good number of people who are of some influence there will be taken to the Prime Minister's Office, and invitations will be sent out, and they will be invited to Sri Tamasek. There will be a very friendly discussion. They will come back to the rural areas and try to get the people to appreciate the importance of the Prime Minister's visit. And they will say, "Oh, you know, on Sunday the great Prime Minister is coming. I think we should do something about it. I think we should give $30.00." So the poor shopkeeper says, "What am I to do? If I say no, mati, my licence might be stopped. If I say yes, why should I waste $30.00?" Take the line of least resistance, give $30.

00. So, big fireworks, crackers and what-not to welcome the Prime Minister. It looks well on Television and in photographs. It could have got the Barisan people all stumped. But what happened as soon as the Prime Minister stepped down? People were cursing. There were loud curses. "Never saw such a man; never came to us. And now come to us to offer what? Sweets, with poison inside?" "You want a community centre? O.K., it will be there. What do you want, a school? It will be there; I will even come and build it. Do not worry." And they have to accuse us of corruption. That is worse, Sir. That is nothing but political corruption. They lay plans for the next general election that is going to come next year. That kind of making use of the public money to go round and get the people to say how good the great Prime Minister is. The great Prime Minister was never good before because he never saw them; and now he goes round. He even went to Sembawang, the scene of the by-election to come. He shed tears. "Ahmad Ibrahim was a brave man with guts." I feel like shedding tears and saying, "Thank God, poor Ahmad, you had died. If you had remained, you would have died of shock at the way the P.A.P. is now doing." Anyway, a good man always gets gathered unto the Father much earlier. It could be that he was taken back to heaven ---

That is why he had lived so long.

Because he had joined the wrong Party! And God said it was better for him to come up before the smash that was coming. That the people who slept with the Communists will now turn out to arrest Communists. That is the shame that Ahmad Ibrahim would have suffered if he had not died. And it was because of them that maybe the Prime Minister cried. And I could cry if I really wanted to feel sorry for Ahmad Ibrahim. An hon. Member: Crocodile tears!

So he described the Prime Minister's tears as crocodile tears. An hon. Member: Your tears.

I have no tears, but the Prime Minister had. I could have cried but I did not. And the Prime Minister says in column 19: `The implementation of these arrangements after 31st August will require a great deal of tact and patience.' A great deal of tact and patience. `We are confident that with understanding and brotherly give-and-take, temporary dislocations can be kept to a minimum.' Would you call it tact, Sir, if what I read in a newspaper published in Kuala Lumpur is correct? Here you have a great Prime Minister going to declare the Jurong Wharf open. That is grand - all pomp and grandeur. Was there tact when he said that he invited the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya to come to witness this opening but he declined? He preferred to go to the races. Would you call it tact - the P.A.P. style of tact? And yet as far as I know no invitation had ever been issued. That is tact, that is the wonderful P.A.P. style of tact. Let us have less of that and it would be better for the relationship between Singapore and the Federation. That is not the kind of tact we want. That does not help in the relationship. Sir, I am sorry if I take time because I am trying to cut down on this. Column 6: `Honourable Members of the House must have known of the deep regret the people felt over the differences that have arisen between the Federation of Malaya and the Republic of Indonesia.' And further down: `So whatever minor differences may arise from time to time between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur over chickens and eggs, or pigs and paints, we stand solidly with them on all the vital questions that affect Malaysia,...'. I support that. But against that, what did the Prime Minister do? You know, in one of his tours in the rural constituencies he said, "Our policy with Indonesia is the right policy. The Federation policy is the wrong policy." So much so that there has been talk in town. Is it because Lee & Lee are the legal advisers to the Indonesian Government that their policy is the right policy? And yet here they say that in everything they support Malaya. That again is P.A.P. culture, P.A.P. twist, P.A.P. double-talk. Let them mean what they say. We will always support them in what they mean - what they say, or to mean what they want to mean to say. I will come to the Communist one later. I do not think I should worry about the Communist one. I support this one. Column 8: `The Borneo territories need capital for development. The Central Government has promised to do its utmost to provide the necessary finance. Singapore must be prepared to make its contribution in loans and other assistance to help the Central Government in helping development of the Borneo territories.' I strongly support this. And it would be a wonderful gesture on the part of the Singapore Government if we could have one road in each territory and name it "Singapore Road". That would forever be a reminder to the peoples in Sarawak, Borneo and Brunei that we in Singapore share with them their hopes, their aspirations and will do what we can to help them in their development. Now, all this talk about the Internal Security Council saying such a thing as at column 4: `But we must always be vigilant. There are still some in our midst actively trying to disrupt national security and sabotage our plans for Malaysia.' Who is to be vigilant, the P.A.P. Government or the I.S.C.? I agree we all must he vigilant. We call on the Prime Minister to be more vigilant. If he has not yet disclosed who the Plen is, where he lives, tell it to his Special Branch. If a Prime Minister can do that kind of a thing, who knows who the Plen is, and where he is, and hides it; and yet the law says, if I know where a Communist lives and know that he is wanted, and if I do not go and tell the police, I will go to gaol. But the Prime Minister is above the law, especially a P.A.P. Prime Minister. He is well above the law. If he wants the public to co-operate and work, and be more vigilant so that the Communists are totally wiped out, let him show an example. Do not turn round in his Battle for Merger, "I talked with the Plen in the Legislative Assembly." If I had known in 1956 and 1957 that the Member for Tanjong Pagar could have been keeping company with Lim Ching Siong. Sir, I would not like to take up too much time on this. I have tried to get across the views of my Party on the Negara's speech. What we are all waiting for and what the Barisan people are waiting for is the next motion to get cracking, and then let us see what kind of stuff the P.A.P. Ministers are made of.

Order. I suspend the sitting. I will take this Chair again at half-past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.29 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on motion moved by the Prime Minister and on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown.

We will get on with the debate on item No. 3 of the Order Paper, the debate to range over not only the main motion hut also over the amendment. Dr Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to confine myself only to certain remarks made by the Member for Queenstown in his speech on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am concerned with that portion of his speech dealing with Malaysia. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, as the leading Communist front organisation in Singapore, has "fought" Malaysia, though the campaign conducted has not been as skilful as it should have been. They have lost the open confrontation which culminated in the referendum last September. The Member for Queenstown is now trying to pretend that they did not really lose the referendum. He said yesterday that if only Members of this Assembly would accept the result of the Nanyang students' so-called academic research project carried out in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer, then we would be persuaded that the people of Singapore were indeed against merger and Malaysia. But, Sir, I am not going to waste the time of the House in rebutting arguments as feeble, as foolish and as futile as the Member for Queenstown has advanced on this issue. I come to the main substance of his argument, and it consists of this. He said that for the immediate future, the constitutional development in Singapore would consist of the immediate and unconditional release of the Communist agents and sympathisers who were detained by the Internal Security Council last February. Then after the release of these persons, the general elections should be held. The elected Government which he actually hoped would be the Barisan Sosialis Government would then re-open with the British Government the whole subject of the constitutional future of Singapore, and Malaysia presumably would then be abandoned. Sir, that is his idea of democratic, constitutional progress in Singapore. Needless to say, that is not our idea of democratic, constitutional progress in Singapore. The subject of detainees will be debated in a subsequent motion and I shall say no more about this. But I think it is fair for me to remind him of certain words which I said to him more than a year and a half ago, when I warned him of the consequences of willingly supporting the Communist cause. It is no use for the Member for Queenstown to pretend that there are no Communists in Singapore or that, in his own words, "the whole thing is a myth and a bogey". We are entitled to assume, in view of his age and his apparently sober and sane demeanour, that he is capable of rational judgment on the basis of facts which are known and acknowledged by everyone. If, on the face of all this, he continues his fairy tale that he does not know that his Party was and still is the major open-front political instrument for the Malayan Communist Party, then we must draw the inevitable conclusion that of his own free will and choice he supports their cause. Now, as I have said, the next stage of Singapore's political development, as he envisages it, is the unconditional and immediate release of the Communist agents and sympathisers, and this is to be followed by the general elections and the re-opening of the whole issue of merger and Malaysia. Sir, he knows, and any sane man in Singapore must know, that this is not going to happen - merger and Malaysia will proceed as scheduled, namely, on the 31st of August this year. The newly independent State of the Federation of Malaysia will be proclaimed. Now, what will then happen? In the words of the Member for Queenstown - and here I quote from page 52 [col. 196] of yesterday's Hansard: `Should Britain so unwisely still impose Malaysia on the people against their will it can only last so long as there are British bayonets and jets around.' Now, Sir, let us ponder on the meaning and significance of these words. There are two points which come to the mind. The first is that Malaysia is to be imposed by force upon the people. We already know that this is completely untrue. In Singapore a referendum has been held and the judgment of the people is clear beyond doubt. Elsewhere the Parties in support of Malaysia have won a great majority of seats contested in local elections and the constituted governments of all the territories which constitute Malaysia are committed to bring about the establishment of Malaysia on schedule. Therefore, to say that Malaysia will have to be imposed against the will of the people is literally untrue. But there is a most sinister significance of these words which I shall explain later. The second point is that this possible imposition of Malaysia can only be carried out by British force of arms. If I understand the meaning of words, what the Member for Queenstown is saying is that there would be violent opposition to Malaysia and violence of such a nature that it has to be restrained by the use of military power. And this is the only possible construction that one can put on his words, for just in the succeeding sentence after the one that I quoted, he said: "But this will mean a heavy price in blood...". Sir, the Member for Queenstown is the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. We have the Chairman of a major political Party in Singapore saying quite bluntly and in so many words that bloodshed will follow upon the establishment of Malaysia. These are serious words. They are not words uttered by students or intellectuals or ordinary men in the course of a carefree conversation. They are not words uttered in the heat of discussion. They are not words spoken under the influence of alcohol. They are words openly and solemnly uttered in the course of an important debate in the Legislative Assembly on matters of national policy. We are therefore entitled to draw the inevitable inference. Indeed, as we read further on in page 52 [col. 198] of Hansard we find in the penultimate sentence the Member for Queenstown saying: `If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed to the people, then there can remain but one final answer.' Now, Sir, the last door to the constitutional struggle - Malaysia - has been closed. There is no way by which the Barisan Sosialis, or any other Communist front organisation, can stop the formation of Malaysia by constitutional methods. Therefore, in the words of the Member for Queenstown, there can remain but one answer, the final answer. What answer, Mr Speaker? The only final answer in this context is quite clear, namely, the unconstitutional methods of violence and bloodshed. Sir, the threat is unmistakable. He is saying in effect, "Stop Malaysia now or else he prepared for violence and bloodshed," and these are words spoken in a solemn policy statement in the Singapore Legislative Assembly by the Chairman of a major political Party. We are therefore entitled to take his words at their face value. It is a curious feature that in the newspaper reports of his speech this morning very little prominence was given to this part of his speech in the English language newspapers. Perhaps the English language newspapers may not he aware of the full implications of this statement. But the Chinese language newspapers did not miss the point and published this part of his speech practically verbatim. There was even a minor headline attached to the report. And so we can take it that the strong and tough men behind the Barisan Sosialis, the shop stewards and the tough characters in the pro-Barisan unions, will read this speech in the Chinese papers and will draw their conclusions, and that conclusion is that if Malaysia proceeds, then the Barisan Socialis and all the other open front Communist, as well as underground Communist, organisations will resort to violence. Now, Sir, if this interpretation is incorrect, let the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber say so unequivocably, let them denounce the Chairman for his criminal stupidity in threatening violence. It is no use for them to say that what the Member for Queenstown is saying is that there might be a risk of a spontaneous outburst of violence. Outbursts of violence in Singapore, as we all know through bitter experience, have never been spontaneous. Violence is calculated and organised and prearranged. In this instance, it is very clear, on the admission of the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis himself, where the centre of organised violence will be. Sir, let me tell the Member for Queenstown - unfortunately he is not here but perhaps his colleagues will pass on the message intended for him - the great import of his words. If he resorts to violence, he must expect the constituted Government of Malaysia to resort to adequate counter measures to contain such violence and to apprehend the criminals responsible for such violence and bring them to justice. So long as the Barisan Sosialis and other Communist front organisations are content to use non-violent methods of subversion, then the worst penalty that they can expect will be a period of detention until such time as they are persuaded of the follies of their ways. But when there is a resort to violence, punishment is not merely detention in gaol either in Singapore or the Federation, punishment is death by hanging. Not only the immediate perpetrators of violence will suffer this fate, but those who are responsible for inciting and organising them will also have to pay this ultimate price. Sir, it is not for the Member for Queenstown to say that death by hanging meted out te perpetrators of violence constitutes Fascist or undemocratic methods. Armed revolt against any constituted government amounts to treasonable action, and in any democratic government the penalty for such a crime of treason is death. Sir, we have to accept also that with such momentous words being uttered, the policy statement of the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis has been cleared and has been accepted by all his colleagues in the Party leadership. Therefore, both they and he will be jointly and severally responsible for the consequences of such a policy. I make this observation, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there are moments when I tell that the Barisan Sosialis open front leadership, as distinct from the real and effective underground direction, consists of eccentric lunatics or ill-tempered maladjusted social misfits, or just downright imbeciles and idiots. Sometimes I gather the impression that they behave like Little children playing with sand castles on the beaches, not knowing what they do, why they are doing it, nor the serious consequences that could follow from their action. It is because I get the impression that they sometimes do not understand the grave implications of their actions that on various occasions I bring upon myself, at grave risk of being misunderstood, the duty of pointing out to them the dire consequences that must follow upon their proposed line of action.

Mr Speaker, the referendum held last year is now seven months old. It is accepted in the minds of the people that Malaysia will be established on 31st August, in spite of the Barisan Sosialis conspiracy to abort Malaysia with the assistance of foreign opposition. Therefore, when the Member for Queenstown keeps on talking of Malaysia as an imperialist and neo-colonialist plot, and that the Borneo territories have no affinity with Malaya and should be returned to Indonesia, he betrays the mental groove into which the Barisan Sosialis has fallen. It is a tragedy for Members of the Barisan Sosialis when their leaders cannot reorientate their political thinking and persist in playing a worn-out record of Malaysia being a camouflage for British colonialism. The prediction of the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis that there will be bloodshed when Malaysia is established will no doubt be duly noted by those who are responsible for the safety and security of this country. It is said that "prevention is better than cure", and I have no doubt that prophylactic measures will be taken to prevent such bloodshed occurring. The Member for Queenstown talks of poverty, disease, ignorance and want. There is no one in Singapore who is so poor that he cannot have his daily meals of rice. The per capita income of Singapore is $1,300, which is the highest in the Far East. There is no epidemic which afflicts the people: the standards of our public health and hospital care have made Singapore one of the healthiest places to live in. There is free primary education for children of all races and we are already expending 23 per cent of our budget on education. If there are poverty, disease, ignorance and want, they exist only amongst the Barisan Sosialis. But here I must make a clear definition. I cannot say that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are materially poor. Their poverty is a mental poverty caused by their inability to free themselves from Communist cliches, and their blindness to the real political situation which faces us today. The poverty of their political thinking and ignorance of the real needs of the people have brought upon them a disease in which everything they see is only of one colour. After merger and Malaysia have been established, the anti-colonial cry will only be an echo of the past. We are entering into a new phase in which is required leadership with positive ideas and plans, which will advance not only the material welfare of the people of Singapore but also the development of Malaysia. A country which has previously been subject to colonialism inevitably throw up a type of militant leadership which is uncompromising in its tight against foreign domination. With Malaysia this phase of the battle is past and gone. A re-adjustment of political thought becomes necessary. The old anti-colonialism war cries will not cause manna to fall from heaven or turn stones into bread. Nor will cries of "Bersatu" create more jobs. Only by careful planning and by the sweat of our brows can we hope to maintain the high living standards that we enjoy in Singapore and generally in Malaysia. The climate of Singapore is now one of construction. Energy and time previously frittered away in political excitement have been devoted to intense work and construction. The fruits of these labours have been detailed in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. The intense building activity of the Housing and Development Board, the Public Works Department and private builders is changing the skyline of Singapore. Jurong, once upon a time an evil-smelling marsh, has been converted into an industrial estate. Land is being reclaimed in the East lagoon and new wharves will be built. Television Singapura though barely two months old has been a whacking success and will no doubt in time to come make an impact upon the pattern of living in Singapore. These are indeed achievements of which we can be proud but they have been made possible by the technical skill and ability of Singapore's workers. As the number of students who leave secondary and primary schools increases year by year, the pressure of jobseekers must cause concern among all these who have the welfare of our society at heart. The problem is being tackled in two directions. The first step is to stimulate capital investment in industrial enterprises so that new factories will be built and ancillary services expanded. In order to achieve this object, not only a climate of confidence in the political future of Singapore must be created but also there must be industrial peace. With the participation of Singapore in Malaysia, the unsureness of our political future will disappear. The Economic Development Board has been the spearhead in our industrialisation programme, but if industrialisation is to succeed it is essential that there must be available in Singapore a reservoir for skilled technical manpower. For this reason, emphasis has been placed on the development of technical education. The Polytechnic is now in its fifth year and the time has now come to develop it into an institute of advanced technology. Steps are being taken to remove the Craft Courses out of the Polytechnic to Balestier and they will form the nucleus for a future vocational institute. The scope for undergraduate courses at technician and professional level will be expanded in the Polytechnic and past-graduate work will be introduced. The graduates which the Polytechnic have produced have shown their worth, particularly to employers in industry. It is now time to carry the development of the Polytechnic one stage further. We intend later in the year or next year to introduce a Bill which will enable the Polytechnic to confer degrees upon those who hold professional diplomas. While we are confident of maintaining the present pace of construction, we must be equally vigilant that the prosperity of Singapore now enjoyed is not destroyed at one fell stroke by an unpredictable slump in trade or a fall in the price of rubber. The reserves that have been accumulated, and to which considerable reference has been made by the Opposition during this debate, are a useful asset for the wintry days should there be a short-fall in revenue and development funds which are hard to come by. I am quite sure Members of the House will agree that we ought never to live like Micawber - �10 income, �11 expenditure. Finally, Mr Speaker, may I add that it is not because of impiety that we have failed to thank God in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, as the Lady from Mountbatten would have us do. I am sure God will be more pleased if we spend less time thanking him in political speeches and more time rolling up our sleeves and getting down to work.

The Prime Minister in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just formally to close the debate on the Motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Over the last two days I think the Assembly itself has reflected a new mood and Members find it difficult to get exuberant or really angry over anything. A certain finality prevails over everything and I think it is to the good that everybody in this country, including Members on the Opposition Benches, understands that there is a finality in the state of things in Singapore and in Malaysia. As to the way we have discharged our duties in Singapore, I leave it to concrete evidence - and literally concrete, bricks, stones, cement, girders - to bear testimony to some of the work we have done over the last 3� years and will continue to do between now and 31st August. After 31st August, Mr Speaker, Sir, a new phase opens and perhaps when that time comes we will chart briefly, again before you, what we think lies ahead. But I think, like all good thrillers, one must never anticipate. We have enough to keep everybody happy and contented between now and 31st August. I hope Members on the other side will take my words to heart that the 1st September really settled a lot of things and that it will be utter folly to go on - as the Member for Queenstown yesterday went on - fighting that verdict. For him to suggest that North Borneo, which does not belong to him but belongs to the people of Malaysia, should be given away to some foreign power. I think that is the sign of reckless foolhardiness which is bound to end up with a great deal more unhappiness all round. All I can say is that, every time after the event, like Cassandra, more in sorrow than in anger, we have pleaded, albeit in vain. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." An hon. Member: Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 15: Noes, 30; Abstention, 1: Absent, 4. Ayes Noes Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- 'We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.'

10.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion, That this House supports the decision of the Internal Security Council made by representatives of the three Governments - the United Kingdom. Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - on the 1st February. 1963, ordering that certain persons known to the security authorities of the three Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist United Front conspiracy to jeopardise national defence and security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia, should be arrested immediately and not left till after 31st August, 1963, and that it endorses the statement made by the Internal Security Council as contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1963. On the 1st of February, the Internal Security Council met in Kuala Lumpur. It decided that action should be taken immediately to safeguard national defence and security of Singapore and of the other territories of Malaysia. It decided that certain - not all - of those known to the three Security Authorities to he deeply implicated in the United Front working for Communist and foreign interests must be arrested. In the early hours of Saturday morning, the 2nd of February, operations were launched from Johore by Singapore and Federation Special Branch officers and a number of persons were detained. I do not think the public were surprised at the action taken against these Communists and their United Front workers. For that matter, the Communists were not surprised either. Perhaps a word of explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir. Since it is rather late in the evening, it is inadvisable to drink tea and it is better to drink water. To those Members of the Opposition Benches who find it difficult to keep awake in the evening, I recommend Chinese tea, particularly the Member for Queenstown. In 1956, when Mr Lim Ching Siong and his Communist United Front friends were taken to gaol, the action was accompanied by riots and civil commotion. This was because the Communists had then succeeded in creating an issue over Chinese education and in exploiting a series of strikes. Thousands of Chinese students camping at the Chung Cheng and Chinese High Schools - Eton and Harrow for a lot of Chinese parents in Malaysia - were broken up by tear-gas. They marched down Bukit Timah Road with arms linked, in tears particularly because of the tear-gas. The action against the students gave the Communists a chance to claim that they were defending Chinese civilisation, education and culture. As a result, an air of martyrdom was assumed by these Communist detainees. They appeared to be defenders of Chinese culture and champions of the workers. This time, on the contrary, the detention of these Communists has not caused any surprise, let alone consternation, amongst the public. On the contrary, there is an air of calm and tranquility. Instead of broken shop-windows and barbed wire and troops, there is peace and business as usual. The Communists wanted an emergency meeting of their United Front cadres, wanted an emergency sitting of this Assembly in the hope of whipping up excitement and tensions, all under cover of privilege. However, because the Member for Cairnhill, for his own reasons, also asked for it, we agreed. Unfortunately, as you have ruled, no emergency sitting could be held until the new Session opened. We offered them radio forums. They declined. Sir, we are always prepared to meet them in the open and join issue with them. We have nothing to hide, nothing to fear, and, as Members know, for nearly two years now, we have had a continuous and open debate with the Communists over merger and Malaysia and Singapore's non-Communist future as part of Malaysia or, as the Internal Security Council says it, "whether it should become a Cuba." Before Lim Ching Siong, leading the open front organisations, embarked on this reckless adventure of trying to make Singapore a Cuba, even at the risk of selling it to foreign powers in this region, he took instructions from the Communist underground. The day following the Anson by-election - Sunday, 16th July, 1961 - Lim Cling Siong made contact with the underground Communist Party of Malaya for instructions. This contact was made in the Nee Soon area at the 7� mile, Upper Thomson Road, in a house off the main road. A number of other senior cadres, including Chok Koh Tong and Tan Hee Kim - being leading members of the Barisan Sosialis - were gathered at the place when discussions were held. Arrangements for the meeting were completely clandestine. At 1927 hours, Lim left the Singapore General Employees Union in Middle Road for the corner of Outram Road and Seng Poh Road, opposite the Chung Khiaw Bank Branch there. He walked to the five-foot way, and at about 1938 hours, a black Morris Minor SR. 5222 drew up. There were two male Chinese in the vehicle ---

He did not ---

Perhaps the Member for Thomson could contain himself. He will know that from time to time that car - [Interruption]

Order.

- is seen in the precincts of this House. [Interruption]

Order.

Yes, indeed. I do not think the Member for Toa Payoh thinks it is very funny.

No.

Order.

There were two male Chinese in the vehicle, one of whom was Chok Koh Tong. Lim, by this time, had put on a pair of dark glasses in the evening. He got into the car quickly which then drove off at great speed. He and Chok were dropped off at the bus-stop, 7� milestone Thomson Road, and the car drove off to the Work Brigade Barracks, Andrews Avenue, Sembawang. The meeting in the house at Sembawang went on throughout the night and into the early hours of the morning. After this important discussion, these senior cadres, including Lim, held a series of meetings amongst themselves to work out the details of a plan to be implemented straightaway. Sir, the Communists preferred Singapore not to merge with the Federation. They wanted to make it into a Cuba from which they hoped to mount an offensive against the Federation of Malaya. When they lost the referendum last September and the overwhelming majority of us - the people - voted decisively for merger, for a peaceful and stable future in Malaysia, they knew that their fate was sealed. They knew that after the 31st of August, they will face security action. The first team of open leaders were well known and could not withdraw and go into hiding. Also, if they had done this, their rank and file would have lost heart and melted away. So their first team of open united front cadres in the political Parties, unions, rural associations and cultural organisations had to be sacrificed. The Communists treated them as expendables to be sacrificed. However, there were other less well-known expendables - the reserve team - cadres whose names and faces were less well known to the public. These, the Communists had hoped, could escape action when the first team was removed. They could go into hiding, since they were not so well known. Their plan was that when the first team had gone after the purge, and some time had elapsed and things looked safe, they could come out and take over the key positions left vacant by their first team, and carry on the conspiracy, restarting and re-forming the united front. Of course, the three Governments knew of this and as the reserve team withdrew and took cover, intelligence men followed to keep track of them. In some cases, however, they have not as yet been found. No doubt after some time, when they think it is safe, they will come out and resume their activities. But Lim Ching Siong and his friends prepared for trouble. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew they were deliberately defying the will of the people expressed clearly in the referendum and they were plotting with Azahari to frustrate Malaysia. When they failed to stop Malaysia through Singapore, they began to look around for ways and means to stop Malaysia through fellow Communists in the S.U.P.P. in Sarawak. They even plotted with an anti-Communist adventurer like Azahari in Brunei. They knew that without the Borneo territories the Tunku would not agree to Malaysia. So they plotted in various was to create trouble in the Borneo territories to stop merger between Singapore and the Federation. To achieve this, Said Zahari, a former editor of Utusan Melayu, who was banned from the Federation in 1961 after the Utusan strike, played a great part. The three Governments knew that Said was Lim Ching Siong's closest Malay associate. Said was in touch with an intelligence agent of a foreign power. In fact, he was in their pay. The three Governments also knew that Said was Azahari's adviser and contact man in Singapore. Said arranged several secret meetings between Lim and Azahari. Their last meeting was four days before the revolt broke out in Brunei. Lim Ching Siong had previously discussed a request by Azahari for money to buy arms. In fact, Lim and his friends were debating whether to give Azahari the money for this purpose. But they had their misgivings about whether the money would be spent for the purchase of arms or whether it would he spent on women for Azahari. Hon. Members will understand from the brief summary of these facts that the Communists knowingly took the risk of action upon themselves. After the 16th of December last year, when action had been taken in Sarawak and the Federation of Malaya, they took special preventive measures. They knew that security actions were usually taken in the early hours of the morning when people were at home. Lim Ching Siong, therefore, gave instructions to all his first team united front cadres to stay in a different place each night, so that the largest number of men might escape when the purge came. It took the police a great deal of trouble and men to mark out the different places where each of these people stayed in the course of one week. Some of them had as many as four or five different places in a week. Lim himself and some leading lights in the Barisan Sosialis, including several hon. Members on the other side, took special precautions. They believed that since the security action in the Federation and Sarawak had been taken in the early hours of Sunday morning, so every Saturday night they went to a midnight show, so that they would not get home till well after two or three o'clock on the Sunday morning. In this way, they would hear of any action that may already have been started and so have time to dive for cover and elude the police. The operations were mounted with great secrecy from Johore. Yet, in spite of the strict security, partly because of their early counter measures, like withdrawing their reserve team and getting their first team to change their sleeping places each night, some 18 of their important first team members could not be found, and quite a number of their reserve team who had taken cover could not be traced. Many Members may ask why security action was taken on 1st February, 1963, instead of some other time, like after 31st August, 1963. Well, there were urgent reasons why it had to he taken in the early hours of the morning of 2nd February. An important member of the Communist united front, Said Zahari, was leaving that morning for Jakarta where Azahari had just arrived the day before from Manila. The last time when intelligence reports came to the notice of the Federation Government of an impending revolt in Brunei by persons trained in Indonesian Borneo, no action was taken. The Tunku said that, although he informed the British, they did not take sufficient preventive steps. British Intelligence did not altogether accept the imminence of the danger. In retrospect now, had the report been acted on, perhaps the Brunei revolt, which has cost a lot of money, involved movements of troops and arms, caused deaths and built up an atmosphere of crisis with some of our neighbours, may not have happened. This time, however, none of the three Governments on the Internal Security Council was willing to be caught napping. And partly because the security action has been successful, the things which were being planned have not taken place. A part of the plan was to mount demonstrations and violent protests in Singapore at the same time as so-called "volunteers" were moved to renew the revolt in Brunei. There are three Governments on the Internal Security Council, and the Intelligence information available to the Security Council was derived from three intelligence agencies. I am in a position to disclose only information collected by the Singapore security organisation and part of the information collected by the Federation security organisation. The British do not wish to disclose their Intelligence information, particularly information from their Intelligence sources in the capitals of South-East Asian countries. They have their reasons for not wanting to disclose information which may jeopardise their sources and may, even worse, make their position vis-a-vis certain powers in South-East Asia more difficult. Each of the three Governments on the Security Council has different immediate interests, and the British have different long-term objectives from the Federation Government and us. But nevertheless, all of us were agreed on the need for immediate action. For one thing, Sir, at that time, the Singapore Communists were making veiled threats to resort to violent struggle. As recently as the 1st January this year Mr Lim Ching Siong, in his New Year message, said: `The ruling clique in the Federation is heavily committed to the imperialists and will pursue an anti-democratic policy in the hope of maintaining themselves in power indefinitely'. Then he ominously said: 'The Left forces must then make the necessary judgment on the matter.' Now, what is the meaning of this? Members will remember that every now and then Barisan Sosialis leaders have made similar statements. They have done so many times in this Chamber and did so again yesterday. To us who have known the Communists for so long, and studied their thinking and their methods, the meaning is clear. They will use constitutional methods as long as these are useful to them. At the same time, they are ready to use more violent methods - strikes, riots, and, in the last resort, armed insurrection. These considered statements were made by persons of authority in the Communist front movement and were intended to prepare their cadres for stronger action when the time was ripe. On 2nd February, immediately the arrests were known, the Member for Queenstown issued a statement in which he said: Now is the time for the people to consider seriously whether the present arrests, and the repressive actions have not already closed all the doors to constitutional struggle,' He repeated that again yesterday: `If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed, then there remains but one final answer.' He goes on to talk of bloodshed if Malaysia were pushed through. The question for the Internal Security Council was when will violence be mounted - before 31st August, 1963, or after 31st August, 1963? It so happened that events in Brunei gave them another opportunity to try and stop Malaysia. Let me give hon. Members the main outline of how the Communists in Singapore tried to exploit the situation. Sheik Azahari is not a Communist. He is too fond of the good life. Nor are the persons immediately around him Communists. But for different reasons, he was opposed to Brunei entering Malaysia, unless it was on his terms. And the Communists saw in Azahari and the few thousand Malays be led in Brunei a convenient cover for their conspiracy. The revolt would be made to appear as the forefront of a liberation movement in Borneo and so prevent the Borneo territories from joining Malaysia and without Borneo, the Tunku would not have Singapore. As luck would have it for the Communists, the Filipinos, also known to be anti-Communists, had made claims on North Borneo. Some Filipinos had discussions with Azahari last November and certain Filipino personalities established links with Azahari and settled a deal on mutually profitable terms. Here was the perfect blind, for nobody can accuse Azahari's revolt to establish the independent State of Kalimantan Utara, otherwise known as the United States of Borneo, as being a Communist conspiracy, for Azahari was not a Communist and the Filipino personalities who backed him were also known anti-Communists. But the irony is that the Communists made good use of them. Sir, no one will ever know how lucky we were that Azahari's revolt went off at half cock, earlier than originally planned, and flopped. Had the original plan which was co-ordinated to coincide with events outside Borneo succeeded, the Sultan captured and made to proclaim the independence of Kalimantan Utara, as may well have happened, we would all have been in a very dangerous situation. But as things turned out Sheik Azahari was no Ferhat Abbas of Algeria. Nor was he made of sterner stuff of men like Ben Bella or Ben Khedda.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I think one hon. Member is using his ear-phone as a loud-speaker. Could a check be made? [Pause] It is not here. It must be up in the Strangers' Gallery. If it is in the Strangers' Gallery, I ask the Serjeant at Arms to try and trace that loud-speaker. Mr Prime Minister.

Sir, I do not want to introduce unparliamentary language in this Chamber, but I think I am fair in quoting Azahari's lawyer in saying that he is a liar and a "bum". Long before the revolt actually took place, Lim Ching Siong bad been in regular and secret contact with Azahari. On all the visits Azahari made to Singapore during last year, Said was his closest associate and confidant.

Order. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to take his seat again. I am told that it is probably the loud-speaker in the Member for Anson's seat - he is not here. Mr Prime Minister.

On several occasions Said arranged meetings between Azahari and Lim Ching Siong. Lim Ching Siong met Azahari at 11.15 on the night of 4th March, 1962, in secret at 118 Tembeling Road. They met again on the 12th of April. On the 3rd of December, just four days before the revolt, all the three, Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, Said Zahari and Azahari met at the Tiong Hwa Restaurant in Prinsep Street. Then within less than 24 hours after the outbreak of the revolt on the 8th, the Barisan Sosialis came out in open support of the revolution. As early as May last year, Mr Lim Ching Siong was already aware of the plans for an uprising. He was then actively considering an offer of weapons being made either in Singapore or in Borneo through his links with the S.U.P.P. He was not quite clear about the situation then prevailing in Brunei and the offer of weapons "to his side". He feared it might be a trap because he was worried that top level "fellows may betray him". He also knew that there was a promise for troops to be sent from the border at the time when the revolt was mounted. All this while the Communists in Singapore knew what was being hatched. In October last year, several weeks before the revolt, the three Governments knew that even Mr Mahadeva of the Straits Times, now detained, knew of the impending revolt and had told some people that Malaysia may not come off as there was going to be an armed revolt in Brunei. Captured rebel leaders in Brunei have revealed that Azahari had told them that he had arranged for a simultaneous uprising in Singapore at the same time as. they attacked in Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah. Lim and Said had promised Azahari that they would mount demonstrations and hamper British troop movements in Singapore when counter action was taken by the British, and they promised to rally support for this so-called "revolution". For a number of reasons they did not succeed. A pending retrenchment of over a thousand Army civilian workers made the climate unsuitable for getting Army civilian workers to take action against base installations. Civilian employees of the Army are employed in order to keep these bases ready for an emergency. The workers were not prepared to jeopardise their rice bowl just for Communist tactics. They failed to get the workers to do things against the workers' own interests. In anger Lim issued a statement condemning the use of the British bases in Singapore in crushing the so-called "liberation" struggle of Kalimantan Utara. They also got the President of the Naval Base Labour Union, Mr De Cruz, to condemn the use of the bases in putting down the revolt. This was immediately echoed in all their other united front publications. They called two so-called "mass rallies" at Hollywood Park, rather inappropriately named for mass rallies, the first by the Barisan Sosialis directed at the Chinese, the second by Party Rakyat directed at the Malays. Both meetings were cold and drew small crowds. Again they failed. Earlier they had even tried to get arms for the rebels. On 6th December last year, two days before the revolt broke out, Azahari went in Said's car to Jalan Spencer, off West Coast Road, to meet a contact to get stolen arms. Said, the link between Lim Ching Siong and Azahari, was all this while in the pay of an agent of an Intelligence agent of a foreign power. He has now, under interrogation, admitted his links with them. Some time ago his agent was arrested. He disclosed that Said was in his pay. The agent was released and he returned to his own country. Shortly afterwards another man came to Singapore. He became Said's "handling agent", a technical term to describe a person who keeps contact with an agent for an intelligence agency. The first agent who was arrested and released obviously did not report to his organisation that he had already revealed Said's connections with them. When Azahari was last in Singapore just before he fled to Manila, he was in constant touch with the leading conspirators in Singapore and also with certain persons connected with foreign consulates. Surveillance was kept on all the key conspirators. Shortly after the revolt in Borneo, Said secretly tried to start a movement for volunteers to fight for the liberation of Azahari's Kalimantan Utara, just like the volunteers who were going to fight for the liberation of West Irian. Mr Speaker, Sir, all this may sound a little bit ambitious now in retrospect, if not comic, but these men take themselves seriously, and we would have made a grave mistake if we did not take them seriously. These men knew that they had lost the battle in Singapore against Malaysia. So they resorted to every available device, and exploited every opportunity to create trouble in the other territories, particularly in Sarawak and Brunei, in order to stop Malaysia. Honourable Members may recall reading in the newspapers of the sudden increase in the number of Barisan Sosialis and other united front cadres who began to tour Sarawak and Brunei in the last few weeks before the revolt. Some will also remember that when the revolt broke out, they were immediately detained and expelled from Brunei and Sarawak. I do not think their capacity for harm was very great but the Sarawak and Brunei Governments did not think that they were just sight-seeing. After the experience of the Brunei revolt, it would be a mistake to underestimate Communist intention or capacity for harm. They had said in the past that there would be bloodshed and violence and they said again yesterday, through the Member for Queenstown, that there would be bloodshed if Malaysia came about or was pushed through, as he put it. This was said by some of their leaders now in detention, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Sandra Woodhull. Yesterday the Member for Queenstown repeated this threat under the cloak of privilege. Some people did not take them seriously in the past. Events have shown that they were prepared to use the Brunei Malays and involve themselves in conspiracy with foreign groups to precipitate armed revolt in the Borneo territories to stop Malaysia. Action could not be delayed. Already relations between the Federation and neighbouring countries are gravely strained, and we can only hope that goodwill from all sides, with the help of conciliation and mediation by disinterested officials of international organisations, will ease the situation. Sir, the Communists did their calculations carefully. They knew that on or after 31st August, their united front would be disrupted. In their eagerness and recklessness to escape this fate, they involved themselves with persons who ii turn were involved with foreign powers. They have brought retribution upon themselves sooner than they had expected. It would have been easier for the Singapore Government to leave them alone until after 31st August, for then the Central Government would assume complete responsibility for defence and security, and take over direct control of the Police and Intelligence. But when the Communists threatened the security of Malaysia, we had to agree to take immediate action to curb them. Probably, as far as Singapore alone was concerned, they could not have created much trouble because they had already been discredited. After nearly two years of open confrontation and public debate the ground was growing cold for them. The Chinese education issue they mounted had failed. Last December they had to abandon their plans for another examination boycott. Their strikes were failing, and in fact only a few days before the arrests, after fierce talk and strike action at Metal Box, Mr Fong Swee Suan had to tell the workers to go back with very little benefits gained and a lot of face lost. Their unions were breaking away from them. We have been able to hold the Communists down because we had exposed their deceit and selfishness in opposing merger and Malaysia and isolated them, by public debate and the open argument. They suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the people in the referendum last September. Since then we have been spared a great deal of this bragging by the Communists and their supporters in this Assembly that they had the masses behind them. We have not heard of the masses, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the last few days. One of the reasons why the purges of the last Government were accompanied by riots and arson, and troops had to be called out, was that Ministers of the last Government were unable or unwilling to meet the Communists in the open and argue it out. The result was that they lost the argument and lost the battle for hearts and minds. So when they detained leading figures, a lot of public sympathy was for the Communists and against the Government. We must never make this error. We are prepared to join issue with the Communists at any time, and all the time, here in this Assembly, on the radio, in T.V., in public forums, in public rallies, a, the United Nations, in Moshi, in Afro-Asian conferences, anywhere and everywhere. We have even invited the Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom in London, Mr Fenner Brockway, to come here, investigate and satisfy himself about all this rubbish of so-called torture that the Member for Queenstown had told him about in his recent trip to London. I am happy to say that he will be coming, not as early as I hoped he would be able to come in April, but some time in May. The Member for Queenstown should remember this before he goes around spreading rumours and falsehoods, that this is a Government that never flinches from the open confrontation. It is they who fear the public debate. The Indonesian Communists and other Communist bloc delegates at the Afro-Asian Conference in Tanganyika feared the arguments of our delegates. As Members know, on 1st February we sent a delegation to this conference. We knew that this conference was controlled by a Communist-dominated Secretariat. Azahari himself had said in Jakarta that the Conference was dominated by Communists and that he was not going on that account. We knew that the Communist bloc led by the Communist Party of Indonesia would try to move a resolution condemning Malaysia as neo-colonialist and giving support to Azahari as the leader of the so-called revolution in Kalimantan Utara. The Indonesian and other Communists were afraid of our facts and arguments, so they stubbornly opposed our delegates from even presenting the case for Malaysia before the Afro-Asian delegates.

Before Lim Shee Ping was arrested.

No papers.

Shee Ping? A Member of this House was not aware of the reply that was given. Mr Lim Shee Ping, I fear to say, was no match when it really came to the open argument between him and the gentlemen that we sent - Mr Devan Nair, Mr Jek, Mr Rahim Ishak, Othman Wok. He went to the Polytechnic to meet the Minister for Finance and we have a tape recording of what happened, the ground went cold on him. Doctrinaire, half-baked Marxist - [Interruption].

Order.

This was at the Polytechnic Students' Union [Interruption]

Order. I ask the Member for Thomson, if he wishes to intervene, to intervene in the proper way; not from his seat. Mr Prime Minister.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I always allow him to intervene. I will never refuse him an opportunity as long as he is with us to debate, to argue, as long as he behaves himself in a constitutional manner. I think the Member for Thomson ought to be grateful that he has a Government in power that is anxious to see that the decorum of public debates, public assemblies is somehow maintained despite very trying circumstances. Sir, at Moshi they knew that if our delegates were allowed to speak, they could have shown that it was nonsense to claim that Azahari's revolution of 2,000 out of 40,000 Malays in Brunei - 40,000 Malays in Brunei, meaning men, women and children and babes in arms, Mr Speaker, Sir, half the size of the Member for Geylang Serai's constituency; half the population - entitled him to proclaim himself Prime Minister, not just of Brunei, but of the 1.2 million people of Sarawak and Sabah. The Indonesian Communists wanted to rally Afro-Asian opinion against Malaysia. They will try hard first in conferences like that in Tanganyika, and if they succeed, then finally in the United Nations. The very fact that they have made no mention of this attenuated resolution that has been passed supporting Azahari's Kalimantan Utara, either by the Indonesian Communists in Jakarta or by local agents in Singapore, is an indication of the defeat they suffered at Moshi. Sir, if they could get the non-aligned countries of Afro-Asia to denounce Malaysia, it would provide for them a cover for intervention without the danger of a world war. For once non-Communist Afro-Asia supports a liberation movement, as it did in Algeria, to aid rebels in the way of arms and volunteers by other Afro-Asian powers, it cannot be easily countered by intervention by a major Western power. Then there will be no danger of its provoking a world war or leading to United States intervention. This was what happened in the case of West Irian. Once Afro-Asia solidly backed Indonesia, the Americans being practical persuaded the stubborn Dutchmen to give up West Trim rather than risk a war in which Afro-Asia would be against them. Sir, I do not say that Sarawak and Sabah is like West Irian. In fact, the Indonesian Communists are rapidly finding that this is a very different proposition. Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah were not part of the Dutch empire. They belong to us, the people of the territories which together were part of the British empire in South-East Asia. They do not belong to the Member for Queenstown alone, and it is not his to give away to the Indonesians, as I heard he wanted to do yesterday. If Azahari claims the support of 40,000 Malays in Brunei, then there are 1.2 million people in Sarawak and Sabah who oppose him. However, we must expect the Indonesian Communists to keep on trying. Our business is to defeat their diplomatic and propaganda offensive at every turn. The recent security action was taken in a different situation from 1956. In 1956, when the Communists were purged, they were part of an anti-colonial united front when we nationalists in the P.A.P. were together with them fighting a common colonial enemy for our freedom. The last time, in 1956, they were purged by a Chief Secretary who was a British official. It was a semi-colonial government whose understanding and grasp of the Communist problem in an anti-colonial situation was feeble, and whose ability to counter Communist tactics was pathetic. This time they were arrested on the decision of the three Governments - the Federation of Malaya, an independent nationalist Government, the Government of Singapore, consisting all of elected Ministers, and the British Government, which has a defence treaty with the Federation of Malaya and is also responsible for the external defence of Singapore. Sir, we have different immediate policies and different political attitudes and different methods. But we all agreed with the decision of the Internal Security Council because it was vital that no chances should he taken that would upset Malaysia and because we in Singapore share vital long-term objectives with the Federation Government on the defence and security of Malaysia. The persons detained were known not just to one but to all three security authorities of the thee Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist conspiracy. So there was no question of political victimisation or personal vendetta. The decision on who were to be detained was an impersonal one, dispassionately made by professional security officers whose instructions from their respective Governments were to blunt the Communist capacity to mount trouble, leading perhaps to violence, and to break their lines of conspiracy with foreign groups. The decision of the I.S.C. was not immediately to destroy all Communist united front organisations. The operation had a limited objective, for a specific purpose, to meet a particular situation. So no political Party or trade union or rural association has been banned, although they are known vehicles of the Communist united front. Only those persons who were known by the three different security authorities to be deeply implicated in the conspiracy - in other words, the key activists in the political Parties, unions aid rural organisations, who were their open points for mobilising support to violent action, mobilising their workers of farmers who belong to these organisations, were detained. Because of this directive, certain other persons, although known to the security organisations to be Communist united front cadres, were not detained in this action. In 1956 after the purge, the Communists and their supporters felt that victory was around the corner. The P.A.P. had been fighting with them in an anti-colonial united front. They knew that when we won the general elections in 1959 and got the keys to Changi Prison, we would have to open the prison gates for them. Otherwise we would have been accused of being traitors to fellow fighters in a common anti-colonial cause. This time, Mr Speaker, Sir, they know the e is no victory around the corner. Whoever wants to open the prison gates either of Changi - there would not be Outram anymore - Pudu, Taiping or Johore, must conquer Malaya and Malaysia by force, or must constitutionally win the majority of the seats in the Malaysian Parliament. Neither of these two ways appears even remotely possible. But I think the most dangerous aspect of this limited purge of Communist front organisers is that the country may be lulled into a sense of false security. Without the leading Communist front figures in the open, without their wild postures, their fierce statements, their strikes and inflammatory speeches, people may be lulled into believing that the Communist threat is gone. Let us never deceive ourselves that this action has removed the Communist threat. Even if the Internal Security Council had arrested all the other united front cadres and banned their organisations, the problem would only be slightly diminished. The basic threat remains. There are two reasons for this. First, the underground party is still there. Our security organisation has not succeeded in locating and breaking up the underground network as yet. In Communist plans and calculations they have anticipated the removal of their united front organisers. These are the "expendables", the men who pay the price of detention in the hope that the Communist revolution may eventually triumph. Any man who is really valuable to the Communists and is not yet known to security intelligence, is never put to work in the open to run the risk of detention. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second reason why the threat is there is that the united front framework is left intact. They have arranged the temporary withdrawal of their reserve team in the united front. A number of these men cannot immediately be traced. After some time, they will come out and carry on where the first team left off. And the underground leaders can always throw in a few more trained cadres to help the reserve team reactivate and revitalise the united front, particularly at the time of elections after election writs have been issued. Members will remember that in several major pronouncements after the referendum last year, when they knew that they had decisively lost in the fight against merger and Malaysia, Mr Lim Ching Siong warned of the difficult struggle ahead and of the need to conserve their strength and carry on the struggle. Well, they have done exactly this. A considerable number of the leaders involved in the Communist united front are men who have come from the Federation. Because of conditions during the Emergency in the Federation and because of the sterner measures there taken against the Communists, some of their best Communist cadres have come to Singapore. One of our problems is that not only do we have our own share of Communist cadres, but that we also have in our small island a considerable number of Federation Communist cadres. This time some 20 of them, key organisers, all of Federation origin, have been ordered by the I.S.C. to be sent hack to the Federation; and there they will remain. They will not be allowed to return to Singapore to frequent their old haunts and cause trouble again. All those detained and those still not detained engaged in the conspiracy should remember that it is up to them to decide if they want a decent place in our society. If they give up this dangerous nonsense of revolution for a Communist Malaya, and now a Communist Malaysia, and stop taking their directives from foreign groups, they can be released immediately. We have no desire to keep anybody out of a fair share of the fruits of our society, whether Chinese-educated, Malay-educated, Tamil-educated, or English-educated. Everybody can share in the fruits of freedom and join in the building of our nation. But let me remind those who are still determined on violent revolution and the setting up of a Communist society, that this time they face nationalism, a much more formidable and enduring opponent than colonialism. Colonialism, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on the way out. Nationalism will stay and triumph. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as expected, the Prime Minister's speech is full of trite, evasive and irresponsible pro-colonial statements that one normally sees in speeches of Colonel Blimps and colonial governors. The phraseology used and the sentiments expressed are no different from the phraseology and sentiments expressed by Governor Waddels and whoever they may be.

What are they?

The pathetic thing about our Prime Minister is that today he can no longer pretend to be an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fighter. He has already been totally exposed, and now he can only shed crocodile tears. If I were to compare what the Prime Minister says today with what he used to thump his chest about not so very long ago, it would provide very interesting reading. And I did tell the Prime Minister during the Anson by-election that I was running through all his past speeches and he laughingly admitted at that time that what he said in July 1961 was entirely different from what he had previously said in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959. Therefore, today we see in the Prime Minister only a contrast, a shell of what he was. He does not spout anti-colonialism any more. He does not spout the cause of the exploited and of the oppressed any more. He does not hurl defiance at the imperialists any more. But now he cows before the colonial master. He belly-crawls to his colonial master.

Order. I ask the hon. Member to remember that he is speaking in an Assembly where unparliamentary words are disallowed. I do not think the term "belly-crawls" is parliamentary. He should withdraw it.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

Withdraw.

The Prime Minister in his -

Has the expression been withdrawn?

Yes, Sir. [Interruption].

Order. I have had occasion to pull up the Member for Queenstown for being disorderly, and now I find that Members of the Government Front Bench are just as disorderly.

The Prime Minister, in his opening statement, talks of having won the open argument. But even in this Assembly, Sir, they are so scared of talking about it that they want to run away from the argument. So how can they ever talk of winning the argument? How can they talk of ever winning any argument'? He talks of his uninvited representatives to Moshi, hoping to gate-crash into the Afro-Asian Conference in Tanganyika. Somehow or other they managed to get some country to sponsor them. But, as I will say a bit more later, the moment they failed they turned round and said, "Sour grapes." The very referendum itself, which the Prime Minister has tried so very much to boast about, showed that the P.A.P. had lost the open argument. Now the Prime Minister talks of midnight shows, meetings in Nee Soon. As in July 1961 when he talked of Russian bears and British lions, now he tells us the same stories. [Interruption] How different is this story from the twelve Arabian Night talks?

1,001 Nights!

The Prime Minister talks of colonialism on its way out. Surely ---

Order. May I ask the Ministers on the Front Bench not to behave with such frivolity? The Prime Minister was allowed to make his speech with very little interruption, and I ask the Ministers to try and listen to the Member for Queenstown with all seriousness.

The Prime Minister talks of colonialism on its way out, but surely he should know - if he claims to know anything about the basic fundamentals of any theory on socialism - that today Malaysia does not mean the end of colonialism. In fact, it means just the opposite, and it means the prolongation of colonialism only in another form. But, however, I shall refer to all this a little later. The Prime Minister talks of our trying to sell the interests of Singapore and Borneo to a foreign power. Later on in my speech I will touch on many of these points, and you will be able to see that it is not us in the Barisan Sosialis who are selling the interests of our country to a foreign power. It is those people opposite who are traitors of our country and who are selling the interests of our people to a foreign power. We support the call for freedom in the Borneo territories. We support the hopes and aspirations of the people in Borneo, and if the P.A.P. Ministers were ever genuine in what they say, they would have done the same, as I will try to prove to you, Sir, because at one time they talked very grandiloquently of their help and support for the Algerians. The Prime Minister referred to it just a little while ago. Of course, the Prime Minister waxes eloquent whenever he talks on the subject of Communism. He always talks of the united front organisation; he talks of the Communist plot, and he refers to Mahadeva having known of the revolution in Brunei a few months before. If the memory of the P A.P. should not be so short, they would also have remembered that we in this Chamber have been talking of revolutions in Brunei and in the Borneo territories many months before that, because Malaysia is a plan meant to subjugate the people. And people are ever ready to fight for justice, equality and freedom and will not submit easily to plans imposed on them against their will. The people in Brunei are fighting with shotguns against jets and warships. Yes, with blowpipes too, and that shows our Ministers opposite that for freedom people are willing to sacrifice anything, even their lives. Now, the Prime Minister talks of decisions having been taken dispassionately by security officers. By that, of course, the Prime Minister means the Special Branch. I will refer to the Special Branch a little later. And he also refers to the wisdom of the P.A.P. in having the concurrence of the three Governments in the arrests. On this question too, I will touch a little later, but, at this stage, may I ask the Ministers sitting opposite whether they remember what they used to say before? As I have said, Sir, I do not wish to quote extensively from the mouthings of those who now stand discredited in the eyes of the people and who have to use Government power and position in order to coerce other people into putting up a semblance of "supporting" the P.A.P. If they were so courageous, let them have the Sembawang by-election straightaway. Why are they scared in spite of all the tours of the Prime Minister to all the constituencies, with all the beautiful pictures taken? With the so-called "support" of the people, why should they be scared? They had ample time to prepare the electoral registers. I have worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs before, and I know exactly how long it takes to get the electoral registers ready. It is a patent falsehood on the part of the Ministers to say that they have not as yet got ready the electoral registers. At this stage, I shall just mention the so-called constitutional methods that the Prime Minister waxes so eloquent about. I do not speak under privilege in this Chamber, Sir,I have been speaking on many occasions outside this Chamber, and when I went to London recently, I also told Labour M.P.s. trade unionists and responsible organisations that if the British Government really wanted the people to oppose constitutionally, then the British Government must make sure that they allowed the Opposition a chance to oppose. If the Opposition has no chance to oppose, it is the British Government that is encouraging armed struggle, and all responsibility must lie with the British Government and with their P.A.P. stooges today. I am glad to hear that the Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom. Mr Fenner Brockway, is coming, because I have with me his written opinion on Malaysia and on the referendum, but I will not say more at this stage. I am sure that Mr Fenner Brockway, when he does come here, will tell the Prime Minister what he thinks of Malaysia and the sham referendum that was imposed on the people by the P.A.P. Government. Today, we all know whit the P.A.P. Government is. We know what the P.A.P Ministers are - just a bunch of reactionaries, opportunists and ruthless, repressive, selfish individuals.

Words only!

The Prime Minister has repeated again and again some of the o!d choruses of his old colonial masters, talking of links between Azahari and Said Zahari and our open support of the Brunei uprising. I will come to all this by and by. I would like, Sir, at this moment, before I venture to speak fully on the motion, to move an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion as follows: In line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end and insert - `condemns the Internal Security Council and the People's Action Party Government for the arbitrary arrests and detention without trial of anti-colonial stalwarts and political opponents of the People's Action Party in political parties, trade unions, universities and civic organisations and te banning of publications of these organisations in suppression of legitimate opposition to the neo-colonial Malaysia scheme; and demands that they forwith stop all further repressive measures, release unconditionally all those detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and restore to the people their inherent democratic rights and liberties, freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly.'

May I have the amendment? Amendment handed in.

And, Sir: That this House condemns the People's Action Party Government for the cruel and inhuman treatment of political detainees, in particular, solitary confinement and denial of newspapers and other reading materials and demands that detainees now in the Federation of Malaya be immediately brought back to Singapore; and that the People's Action Party Government forthwith stop all tortures and implement the recommendations of the People's Action Party-appointed 1960 Prisons Inquiry Commission Report as contained in Paper Cmd. 17 of 1961.

I take it then that the hon. Member wishes to move by way of an amendment the deletion of the words from "House" to the end of the Prime Minister's motion and there to insert the substance of his own motions which appear as items 5 and 6 of the Order Paper. Is that correct?

Yes, Sir.

The amendment is in order. The hon. Member may continue his speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first refer to the black day of Singapore? The Prime Minister spoke very lightly of the 2nd February - he used the words "1st February" - but to us. Sir, the 2nd February is a black day for Singapore. What happened on that day - the black day of Singapore - is now history. In the early hours of the morning of 2nd February, sudden repressive action was taken against leaders of political Parties, trade unions, rural organisations, hawkers' associations, universities, old boys' associations, intellectuals and other progressive individuals. All those arrested were, and still are, anti-colonial and anti-Malaysia stalwarts and bitter and strong opponents of the PAP. The mass arrests were all carried out with an intimidatory array of armed might. Accompanying plainclothes officers were fully armed police with combat troops in battledress standing by and on the ready. It reminds us of the days of the Gestapo of dictator Hitler and of the Japanese Kempetai. The Japanese Kempetai did exactly what the P.A.P. Government has done today.

11.42 p.m. The Barisan Sosialis bore the brunt of the onslaught and has suffered the most casualties. From our Central Executive Committee alone, nine members have been arrested and detained. They are our Vice Chairman, S. Woodhull, the Secretary-General Lim Ching Siong the Assistant General, Mr Poh Soo Kai, Committee members, Chok Koh Thong, Fong Swee Suan, Dr Lim Hock Siew, Lim Shee Ping, Dominic Puthucheary and Tan Yam Seng. From our Central Cultural sub-committee, Central Organisation sub-committee, Publication sub-committee and Branch Committees, altogether more than 40 from the Barisan Sosialis have been detained. I will table a list of names of Barisan members recently detained. The total number under detention, together with those from other organisations, we now learn, is 133. Nine have been released, leaving 124 still under detention. 124 innocent persons, deprived of their individual freedom and kept behind walls in solitary confinement, and given treatment worse than that of convicted criminals. Why? All because they oppose imperialism and neo-colonialism. All because they oppose the British-sponsored Malaysia, and because they, oppose the P.A.P. The powers that be, in order to give an excuse for locking them up, made them out to be dangerous men. The Prime Minister says, "These are the people who will mount the barricades." Yet, not so very long ago, he used to ridicule them as beer-hall revolutionaries. Now, because 4 suits the purpose of the P.A.P., they have suddenly become dangerous men. And, of course, it suits the Prime Minister. But let us ask: Did they steal or rob? No. Did they kill or murder? No. Did they take part in riots? No. Did they take up arms against the Government? Again, no! Yet, all these 124 persons have been arbitrarily arrested and detained without charge or trial, and treated worse than convicted criminals! Why? Why, Mr Prime Minister? Why, Mr Deputy Prime Minister? Today, as a result of the arrests, threats and intimidations a change has come over Singapore. The people prefer not to talk so very loudly of politics these days. Many clam up on politics the moment they see strangers around. There is an atmosphere of suspicion, uncertainty and fear. There are so many spies and informers around that no one can be certain that what he says will not be carried back to the ears of the fearful P.A.P. Without doubt, Singapore has become a Police State. Those in authority can resort to arbitrary arrests at any time. The only law in the State seems to be the law of the Police, the Special Branch and the P.A.P. What has taken place and is taking place today merely confirms what we have all along been saying, namely, that the P.A.P. is endangering democracy and that parliamentary democracy under the P.A.P. has already become Fascist dictatorship. If such a Police State is going to be the blessing of Malaysia, then we must be prepared for worse things to come. We need only see from how the arrests were carried out the things to expect with the formation of Malaysia. Innocent people engaged in legitimate pursuits have been arrested and some very quickly whisked off to the Federation without the families even notified where they were sent. It is like being shanghaied, or kidnapped, and that, by the powers that be in the country. It is so unbelievable. The brutality and callousness of the people have to be seen to be believed. And I am very glad that Mr Fenner Brockway will come ---

Hear, hear!

- and see what is happening in Singapore today.

And you did not even have the decency to - [Interruption]

Inquiries from anxious parents and families were put off, and in the anxious moments after the arrests, no attempt whatsoever was made by the police to give any information concerning the detainees in order to allay their anxiety. There seems to have been a conspiracy to inflict mental agony and torture on the wives and families of the detainees simply because they happened to `be the wives and families of the detainees. Has the P.A.P. Government no humanitarian principles left? Repeated attempts were made by us in the Barisan Sosialis, in our capacity as Legislative Assemblymen, to enquire for news of the whereabouts of detainees and how they were being detained, but our efforts were all in vain. Our requests for news were completely ignored. Wives and families were not allowed to see the detainees until after six days - six agonising days of anxious waiting. Is this what the people of Singapore had elected the P.A.P. in 1959 for - to inflict on them mental torture and agonising anxiety, and fear of spies and informers? Then, Sir, there was the question of detainees being sent to the Federation. As citizens and residents of Singapore, why have they to be sent outside Singapore? The talk of "those of Federation origin to be sent back to the Federation of Malaya", smacks too much of the imposition of extra-territorial rights by the Federation on Singapore today. In so transferring persons detained in Singapore to the Federation, the two Governments have already violated and trampled underfoot the fundamental human rights of the individual. Already bad enough in the case of Singapore residents, it becomes worse in the case of the Singapore citizens. A person becomes a Singapore citizen with great difficulty. Yet his rights of citizenship are summarily swept aside. Under the circumstances, what legal and constitutional safeguard is there left for the common man? The arrest of Lim Shee Ping is a case in point. This is a good case for the attention of international jurists and constitutional experts. The Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Secretariat in Cairo sent an invitation to the Barisan Sosialis to send an observer delegate to the Conference at Moshi, Tanganyika. It was decided by us to send Lim Shee Ping as our delegate. He left Singapore on Friday, 1st February, 1963, and was on his way to Moshi when his Federation passport was withdrawn at Nairobi. The Straits Tunes of the 4th February, 1963, says: `Authoritative sources disclosed tonight that he was intercepted at Nairobi, Kenya, on his way to Dar-es-Salaam. There the British authorities withdrew his Federation passport...' Let me emphasise, Sir. The British authorities withdrew his Federation passport at the request of the Federation Government. He was then put on a plane hound for Malaya. It is not that he went voluntarily by himself. But he was bodily put on a plane bound for Malaya. "It is not known when he left Nairobi and whether he will be flown back to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur." This is the high-handed action of arbitrary arrest carried out across the high seas and across international boundaries. And for what reason? Did he commit murder or some serious international crime that needed the services of Interpol? Lim Shee Ping committed no crime. He had been seen off only the day before at the Airport by many of us, and he was then on his way to an International Conference. Yet he was arbitrarily stopped, arrested and sent back to Malaya! A cable was received from him informing us that his passport had been withdrawn and that he expected to arrive back in Singapore at 12 midnight on Monday. 4th February, 1963. We made several attempts to meet him, but of course they were all to no avail. The truth of the matter is - and here I challenge the Minister for Home Affairs in his answer to me only yesterday - Lim Shee Ping was secretly transferred en route in Bombay, or at Calcutta, from a Qantas flight to an Air India flight. If, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, he came back just because he did not have his passport, the authorities would not have transferred him from one flight to another. And instead of arriving back in Singapore at 12 midnight as expected or on an earlier Qantas flight at 7 p.m. he arrived back in Singapore at 5 p.m instead. Instead of 12 midnight or instead of a bit earlier at 7 o'clock, he arrived back at 5 o'clock. This was specially arranged by the British authorities to ensure that we would not have a chance of meeting him. Newspapers next morning headlined, "In and out and nobody knew". "Detainee Lim expected on one plane . . . He came by another." This is the Machiavellian plotting of pro-colonial stooges and agents in order to deprive people of their freedom. (00.01 a.m., 10th April, 1963) On Wednesday, 6th February, 1963, the Straits Times, at column 4, page 5, said: `Reporters who were waiting near the V.I.P. Room to interview Dr Subandrio, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, did not see him [Lim Shee Ping] being hustled [I wish the Minister for Home Affairs will listen to this] from the plane to a police land rover. He was driven from the Airport through a little used gate near the site of the new terminal building. Later he was transferred to another land rover and driven to Kuala Lumpur under a strong police escort.' Sir, such is the cloak-and-dagger story of the arrest of Lim Shee Ping, Central Executive Committee member of the Barisan Sosialis and adviser to the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Yet the arrest which was done in such a secretive manner (like the arrests of the others in the small hours of the morning) shows that the P.A.P. knows how objectionable and hateful such arrests are in the eyes of the people of Singapore. The arrest of Lim Shee Ping shows clearly too how the abhorrent police work in Singapore. It shows that persons can even be arrested in far away countries in Africa. Lim Shee Ping was arrested by the British authorities in Nairobi, Kenya, not in Singapore. This again shows that it is the colonial octopus, stretching across countries, seas and continents, that is the real monster in Malaya. The British still control all, behind the facade of independence in Malaya. The Federation merely acts as British agents, protecting British interests. The P.A.P. are only the flunkies of both the British and the Federation Governments! Did the people of Singapore elect the P.A.P. in 1959 to become flunkies to colonialists and neo-colonialists? No, Sir. The people elected the P.A.P. to carry on the anti-colonial struggle. But now that the P.A.P. leaders have become willing stooges of colonialism, no amount of so-called good work and social reforms, like the building of flats - which are white elephants - clinics, creches, post offices and community centres, will be able to save them from the wrath of the people. It is only a matter of time, and time is fast running out for the P.A.P. `colonial stooges. Though arrests by the P.A.P. were not unexpected, and I shall enlarge on this a little later, nevertheless, the suddenness of the so-called "dawn swoop" and the extensiveness of the arrests surprised the whole of Singapore, especially when there was not the slightest justification for the arrests. Many just could not bring themselves to believe that the P.A.P. had really gone to the extent of repaying past help and support with such gross ingratitude and outright treachery. Measured by any moral standard, it is difficult to believe that anyone could be so ungrateful. Even a dog will not bite the hand that feeds it.

That is right, thirteen dogs in front of us.

Order.

Immediately after the arrests, we demanded the immediate recall of the Assembly. We telephoned, and we wrote letters to the Leader of the House after he had refused to see us on important Assembly business. I do not know who he thinks he is. Maybe because he is the Deputy Prime Minister! But surely, as the Leader of the House, he has no right whatsoever to refuse opportunities for Members of the House to see him on important Legislative Assembly business. It is the business of the Leader of the House to be ever ready to speak to Members of the House. Yet we have a Leader of the House who puts on airs and says, "You cannot see me unless you have an appointment." I am sure when he takes up courage enough to go hack to the people of Rochore, the people of Rochore will give him a re-sounding answer.

And you go back to Queenstown.

He will lose his deposit.

You will lose yours too.

Anyway, Sir, it was obvious that the P.A.P. had no intention of recalling the Assembly immediately. The Prime Minister has admitted that the issue was too hot. The P.A.P. no doubt preferred to wait for the heat to cool off before embarking on a debate on the matter. Attempts were made to use Radio P.A.P. as a substitute for the Legislative Assembly. The P.A.P. had hoped to manipulate the radio and the meeting for P.A.P. propaganda. The Government had prepared for a very long Assembly holiday. The Budget, you will remember, Sir, for the first half year of 1963 was passed in 1961 in order to allow the Government to skip holding Assembly sittings until the end of June. And, however brave and courageous, whatever front the Prime Minister may think of putting up, we all know that it is the pressure of public opinion that forced the Government to reconvene the Assembly. We realise that the P.A.P. today will do its best to make it difficult for us. But knowing full well that they have to depend on the Lim Yew Hock group to prop them up in office, they dare not offend the Member for Cairnhill. Only a little while back, the Prime Minister admitted that he had to reconvene the Assembly because the Member for Cairnhill had also asked for it. Does it not show how much the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. have to crawl down before the very people whom they used to ridicule and despise before? What a sorry plight to see P.A.P. Ministers grovelling before those whom they had not the slightest opinion of only a short while ago! They have had no sitting for the last eight months, since the middle of July, except for a Gilbert-and-Sullivan affair on the 5th of September after the referendum. Many people in the United Kingdom find it very difficult to believe that we have a Legislative Assembly in Singapore today. All are shocked with amazement at the complete lack of parliamentary practice under the P.A.P. Government. Sir, we must not forget that today there is a news-gag on us in the Barisan Sosialis. I touched on this yesterday. The Government wants to create the impression, inside as well as outside Singapore, and the Borneo territories as Well, that there is very little opposition to Malaysia. In fact, there is a news-gag on anything and everything that is against Malaysia. On the other hand, the slightest bit of pro-Malaysia news is played up and given big headlines. Not only is there a news-gag on the Barisan Sosialis and on all who are anti-Malaysia, but, as you know, ten publications of trade unions, universities, and even political Parties, have also been banned since the arrests. There is now no freedom of association and assembly. On top of all this, we are now denied the freedom of publication. The Barisan Sosialis has not been proscribed, and the organs of our Party - the Chinese Barisan, the English Plebeian, and the Malay Rakyat - have not been banned, hut attempts have been made to ban our organs indirectly, as I mentioned yesterday. Our printers had their licences suspended and they were forced to go out of business for ten days. They have - been given back their yearly printing press licences, but they no longer dare to print our Party organs. This is the type of democracy we have in Singapore today: arrests, banning of publications, cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees, and a complete denial of the fundamental rights of mankind. How can the P.A.P. Government still pretend to practise parliamentary democracy in Singapore? No, Sir, this is the death of democracy. Singapore has become a police State. The selfish interests of P.A.P. leaders and their lust for power have turned them into Fascists. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This dictum is self-explanatory. It is clear too that State power in Singapore has fallen into wrong hands, and the earlier the P.A.P. is removed from office, the better it will be for Singapore and for every one. Sir, there are a number of allegations in the Internal Security Council's statement issued after the arrests on 2nd February, chief among which are: (1) that the Barisan Sosialis and other organisations are under control of the Communists; (2) that the three Governments concur in the arrests: (this, according to the Prime Minister, is the wisdom of the P.A.P. Ministers) (3) that the persons were arrested to safeguard the security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Malaysia; (4) that they were arrested because of their open support of the uprising in Brunei and their resorting to violence and bloodshed. Sir, let us examine these allegations one by one, as well as other points in the Internal Security Council's statement and see whether they are justifiable allegations. Let us first deal with the subject of Communism. Communism is the pet subject of the Prime Minister and is an accusation that is always raised by the colonialists to justify every repression against anti-colonial forces. Ever since the Second World War, and even before that, national liberation movements, which the Prime Minister nowadays speaks so slightingly of, in all colonial countries have been daily gaining in momentum, and colonial powers have always used this accusation to deny the people their legitimate rights and aspirations in the colonies and semi-colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Communist bogey has always been used to frighten and intimidate the people. Almost all nationalist leaders in countries that have now gained their independence had at one time or another been accused of being Communists, pro-Communists or Communist-front men. This has, however, not prevented their helping in the liberation of their own countries from the yoke of foreign domination, nor the inevitable collapse of colonialism. Many were imprisoned for their beliefs and for the part they played in their just national struggles. But, in almost every case, the colonial powers had been compelled ultimately by pressure of public opinion and the inevitable march of history to release them and to recognise them as true national leaders of their countries. In our country, all anti-colonial stalwarts, all who wage an uncompromising struggle against imperialism and colonialism, and all true patriots, have at one time or another been labelled Communists of one hue or another. Even Lee Kuan Yew, the McCarthy type anti-Communist of today, and ironically the self-professed Communist collaborator of yesterday, was at one time also labelled Communist. He was then wearing the mask of anti-colonialism and he was pretending to fight against imperialism and colonialism. Of course, he is now completely unmasked. He is now exposed through and through - he is now seen in his true colours - an out-and-out colonial stooge, a running dog of the imperialists. Sir, this charge of Communism is not new. In fact, so long as colonialism in whatever shape or form exists, and so long as we struggle against colonialism, so long will this charge of Communism hang over us. This business of the Communist conspiracy is so widespread that it haunts even the countries of the sovereign powers themselves. I was informed by a British Member of Parliament, Mr William Warbey, when I was in London recently that the stories of the Communist conspiracy in Singapore reminded him very much of the stories put out before the war by the British Government in Britain itself. Thus, one can see that this Communist bogey is something that is not confined to the colonial territories alone. It is also present in the very heartland of the colonial power itself. In fact, it is present wherever privileged groups exist and when they try to prolong their oppression and exploitation of the people. It is especially used by Fascist dictators and tyrannical oppressors who find in the Communist bogey an excuse for all sorts of repressive actions and terror. Hitler made use of this bogey, and we know today what the world thinks of him. In British territories the world over today, wherever there is a national liberation movement or some strong Opposition to colonial rule there is this Communist label bandied around. So, in Malaya, when the Federation politicians and the Prime Minister make this same accusation, they are merely echoing the words of British colonialism in many parts of the world. Indeed, they are merely joining the chorus of men like Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee and Ngo Dinh Diem - Fascist dictators who use anti-Communism as an excuse for all sorts of repressions. We have already seen the Minister for Education making friends with Ngo Dinh Diem, a person whom the Prime Minister used to condemn not so very long ago. We must remember, when we talk of Communism, that the M.C.P. has been an illegal organisation for the last 15 years, and every effort has been made by the police and colonial troops to hunt down every Communist. It is convenient to label all strong opposition as Communists, as it paves the way for the colonial power to invoke the law against such opposition. But what is the result of such Communist-labelling? It does Snot solve the problems of poverty. It only results in the crippling of all democratic forms Of expression that exist. Already we see the Communist label being used in Singapore to deny workers and trade unions their fundamental rights of freedom of association and assembly. Even political Parties have been similarly denied their freedom of assembly. I do not need to mention the banning of the ten publications and journals of political Parties, trade Unions, universities and other organisations. Those who wish to oppose Malaysia constitutionally, like our comrades and friends in the Barisan Sosialis and other political Parties, trade unions and civic organisations, have been arbitrarily arrested and detained. This Government simply hangs the Communist label on them. This label of Communism is, with few exceptions, only applied to persons of Chinese origin. The Party Rakyat and the people of Brunei revolted against the imposition of Malaysia, but being mostly of the Malay race, the charge of Communism is not levelled at them. Of course, this is only an example Of the colonial policy of divide and rule. The colonialists hope to fan the flames of inter-communal suspicion and discord. The Prime Minister himself played the some colonial game when he "advised" the Chinese in Sabah to quickly join Malaysia by emphasising that the Brunei uprising was mainly a Malay revolt. This is only one example of the communal policies of the P.A.P. Sir, the opposition to Malaysia has a genuine basis and has nothing to do with any Communist plot, indeed, this opposition is because of the imperialist plot. Instead of answering the injustices of the Malaysia Plan, the British, Federation and Singapore Governments run away from answering by calling us Communists and by putting leaders, who oppose Malaysia, in prison. They cannot answer our proof that Malaysia is unacceptable to the majority of the people. Their answer is the answer of Fascist dictators - arrest, imprisonment and torture. By crying Communism, of course, they hope to side-track the attention of the people from their oppression and exploitation and to confuse them. By arresting the leaders, they hope also to intimidate the people into abjectly accepting Malaysia and to prevent further opposition to the Malaysia Plan. As I have said, they want to create the impression to the outside world that there is very little opposition to Malaysia, and that the majority support Malaysia. Of course, the reverse is the case but so frightened are they of the true facts being known to the outside world that they have to arrest Lim Shee Ping, our delegate to the Moshi Afro-Asian Conference, before he arrived there. And when the uninvited P.A.P. delegation failed to gate-crash into the conference, they turned round to cry "sour grapes" and accused the conference as being Communist-dominated. This alone shows how ready they are to use the Communist label on those who do not accept their policies. It is clear, therefore, that no weight can be put on the allegation in the Internal Security Council statement that the Barisan Sosialis is controlled by the Communists. As I have said on many previous occasions, the Communist label means strong opposition. To say that the Barisan Sosialis is under the control of the Communists only means that the P.A.P. recognise the strength and popular support of the Barisan Sosialis. 00.32 a.m.

Let me touch a little on why the P.A.P. is so fond of this Communist line. Why is the P.A.P. so fond of the Communist bogey? The Prime Minister delights in talking about Communism. He enjoys talking Communism and for very good reasons too. Why? Let us analyse why. The Prime Minister and his opportunistic friends like the Communist line. Why? Because with this Communist bogey, they hope to deceive the people and frighten them. I have already mentioned that. They hope to use the Communist bogey as a tool by which to crush political opposition and if political opposition could be crushed, then, of course, there would be no great difficulty in their maintaining themselves in office. The Barisan Sosialis today offers the greatest effective opposition to the P.A.P. Therefore, the first objective of the P.A.P. is to identify the Barisan Sosialis with the Communist bogey, and through the excuse and pretext of dealing with the Communists, the P.A.P. hope to hit at the Barisan Sosialis and all other organisations that offer effective Opposition to the P.A.P. That is reason No. 1. The second reason is the Prime Minister uses the omnipresent Communist as a ready-made scapegoat for all the sins of commission and omission of the P.A.P. Thus blames the Communist for all the P.A.P. mistakes and failures, for all the P.A.P. broken promises, for all the P.A.P. undemocratic and Fascist repressive actions, for all P.A.P. reactionary and pro-colonial policies. In fact, everything that goes wrong is indiscriminately blamed on the omni-present Communist. The third reason is this. It follows from this that since all mistakes and faults are laid at the door-step of the Communist bogey, the Prime Minister and his P.A.P. Ministers can claim themselves to be always right, to be always infallible. They then hope to absolve themselves from all blame under all circumstances, and on all big vital issues that have aroused the indignation of the people. The fourth reason is this. The Prime Minister also uses this Communist bogey with the hope of silencing opposition to P.A.P. undemocratic and Fascist ways. As the M.C.P. is an illegal body in Singapore and the Federation, no one will be able to speak up in public on its behalf without at the same time being smeared as Communist or pro-Communist. Thus the Prime Minister hopes to silence even the uncommitted into not daring to openly and publicly oppose or criticise P.A.P. leaders. With luck, the Prime Minister also hopes even to intimidate them into "supporting" the P.A.P. Reason No. 5 is this. With this Communist bogey, the P.A.P. hopes also to alienate certain sections of the people from us in the Barisan Sosialis and thus restrict and limit the growing strength and influence of the Barisan Sosialis. Thus, from the very beginning, since our break with the P.A.P., we in the Barisan Sosialis have been labelled Communist and pro-Communist, and the Barisan Sosialis and other anti-P.A.P. organisations have been labelled Communist front organisations, and so on. The 12 radio talks and the publication of thousands and thousands of The Battle For Merger booklets were all designed to scare and frighten people away from us in the Barisan Sosialis. Thus, the Communist bogey becomes the useful tool by which P.A.P. leaders hope to crush political opposition. All through the past two or three years, we have seen how the P.A.P. work this bogey line. For instance: (i) In an attempt to crush political opponents and to salvage their personal political fortunes, the P.A.P. leaders support the British-sponsored Malaysia Plan. They strain every sinew and exert the utmost effort to sell the Plan to the people of the five territories and proclaim that all this is meant to fight Communism. (ii) Similarly they claim that the obnoxious clause 29 and the whole sham referendum itself were meant ---

Order. I have already indicated to the Member for Queenstown that on no account can he cast any reflection on a decision of this Assembly. When he refers to clause 29 of the Referendum Ordinance as obnoxious, that is certainly casting a reflection on a decision of this Assembly. He must not do that.

I withdraw the word "obnoxious". Sir. As I have said, similarly they claim that clause 29 of the Referendum Bill and the whole referendum itself were meant to fight the omnipresent Communist. (iii) The P.A.P.'s unreasonable and Fascist actions against the People's Association employees, Work Brigade employees, striking office workers and Chinese school students were attributed to fighting so-called Communist infiltration and subversion. (iv) The interference with the practice of academic freedom of the universities, unequal employment opportunities for Nanyang graduates and the suppression of the freedom of publication were again attributed to fighting Communism. (v) The break-up of the former T.U.C. and the failure to keep the P.AP, election promises - especially of the promise of the unification of the trade union movement - the P.A.P.'s sponsoring of splinter unions and the so-called N.T.UC., and the denial of the freedom of association and assembly to trade unions and political parties, have all been also attributed to fighting Communism. (vi) The withdrawal of citizenship from anti-colonial stalwarts and the denial of jobs and employment to certain persons are also attributed to fighting Communism. (vii) The restriction of travel of Singapore students and teachers and the unreasonable and unjust terms of the White Paper merger proposals are also because of the fear of so-called Communist infiltration. (viii) The failure of the P.A.P.'s industrialisation programme has been blamed on the Communists. Even the dissatisfaction and anger of farmers for their being evicted from their homes with inadequate and unsatisfactory compensatory terms in Toa Payoh and Geylang Serai and other places have been attributed to the Communists. (ix) The retention and use of the P.P.S.O. and the recent arbitrary arrests and detentions without charge or trial are again because of fighting Communism. And (x) The cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees -

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

He can wait, Sir. And the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees that has been condemned by the whole world is also because they are alleged to be Communists. Let us ask the two Ministers over there: how silly can the P.A.P. get? What further examples do we need to see P.A.P. machinations in the use of anti-Communism for selfish ends? The P.A.P. Ministers have used the Communist bogey to good purpose; all to serve their own personal interests and, of course, the interests of their colonial masters. All this Communism business, of course, is linked up with the Special Branch and the P.P.S.O. And since the P.A.P. leaders have served their colonial masters so very faithfully, they are, of course, entitled to full encouragement of the colonialists. The P.A.P. now have the active co-operation of the organs of repression used by the colonialists and imperialists for the oppression and exploitation of the people. Their so-called Intelligence Department of Singapore is this Special Branch. The Special Branch is one of the main organs of colonial repression. It is the most noxious organ of imperial rule, and in a colony like Singapore, it can be said that the real rulers are not the P.A.P. Ministers but the Special Branch of the Police. Sir, since the Emergency in June 1948, repressive laws have turned our country into a police state. When the Emergency Regulations were withdrawn in Singapore in 1955, they were replaced by the P.P.S.O. and under the P.P.S.O., large numbers of our patriots and anti-colonial stalwarts have been arrested and detained without trial. Many are still languishing in prison after seven years without charge or trial, detained at the pleasure of the colonial masters. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18 and 19 have this to say. This is the 1945 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 says: `Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in company with others in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.' Article 19 says: `Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.' This is our Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18 and 19. But what do we find in Singapore, the Borneo territories and the Federation? It is entirely different from the recognised United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Constitution lays it down that there is freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly. But it is not the rights that exist on paper that count. It is whether or not these rights can be exercised and enforced in practice that really counts. Voltaire many years ago said: `I detest your views. But I am prepared to die for your right to express them.' Can the Prime Minister and his Ministers rise to just one-hundredth of the stature of Voltaire? Today to deny these rights to the people, subterfuges and cover-up charges are laid at the door-steps of the people. And under the pretext of safeguarding the "security of the state," repressive action has been extensively carried out! The mere fact that these allegations are made and no charge and trial is given shows the hollowness of the allegations. What is the Special Branch? I had worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs for a short period and I have come to learn a number of detestable things about the Special Branch. We all know that the Special Branch in Singapore is merely an off-shoot of the secret police started in the middle of the 19th century in England itself. Spies and agents were employed by the Government at the time when the struggle between the capitalists and the workers were assuming significant proportions. And these spies and agents were employed to deal with the working class in the land of the very heart of imperialism itself. This secret police very rapidly expanded its influence all-pervadingly to all the government departments, not only in the United Kingdom, but very quickly also to the colonies. Its powers are extensive. Even Parliament and our Assembly have no say in the running of the secret police, and I dare say even the Ministers, more often than not, know nothing of what is happening inside the Special Branch in Robinson Road, Singapore, to say nothing of Assemblymen, Backbenchers and other people. I learned the other day, when one of the Ministers was asked why there should be arrests this time, that he said he knew nothing of what was happening. He did not know a single thing and yet he is a Minister of the Government today! This merely proves my point, Sir, that even Ministers do not know what is happening in Robinson Road Special Branch. The Special Branch is there to serve not the interests of the people of Singapore but the interests of colonialism and imperialism. The Special Branch is directly linked with the United Kingdom Commissioner in Singapore and the big-wigs of the British Military Forces who are here not to serve the interests of the people of Singapore, but to serve the interests of people outside Singapore. They are here, not to give us freedom, but to oppress and to deny the people of Singapore their legitimate hopes and aspirations. The wide powers of arrests and detention given to the Special Branch under the P.P.S.O. surprised even the people of the United Kingdom itself. There in the United Kingdom, the powers of the secret police are strictly limited by the safeguards in the habeas corpus. This is not possible in Singapore today under the P.P.S.O. And from this alone, Sir, we should be able to see what a repressive instrument the P.P.S.O. is today in Singapore. Today, the Special Branch, being merely a colonial organ of repression, maligns all anti-colonial political Parties, organisations and progressive individuals as Communists and those who oppose the P.A.P. are, of course, automatically Communists. The Prime Minister tells us there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. But because hundreds of thousands in political Parties, trade unions and civic organisations oppose the P.A.P., these hundreds of thousands have all suddenly become Communists. The Prime Minister used to ridicule them and called them all sorts of fancy names. They were all beer-hall revolutionaries, arm-chair revolutionaries and what-not. But because he fears their opposition today, he has arbitrarily arrested them, detained them. Now he has a chance to pose to the people again, not as an anti-colonialist, but as an oppressor of the people of Singapore. The Special Branch, of course, is served very well with spies and informers. We see them very frequently nowadays. They are always waiting in lanes and all sorts of odd places. In our Barisan Sosialis headquarters, we have spies and agents opposite us, around us, below us ---

Above us.

--- and there are Special Branch officers who are permanently stuck to coffee shops, and just do not budge. Some of them, of course, do it very openly. They know that we know them and they do not even bother to cover up the fact that they are undercover agents. Sometimes they pose as loving couples. But, of course, it does not make much difference as to how they pose. We can deal with them. Very few people understand how the Special Branch works. That they open letters, tap our telephones, censor our communications coming into and going out of the country and tail people around like dogs is an open secret. But how spies, informers and agents provocateurs work is not so well-known. But however the spies and informers work, they have been proved to be the most unreliable of witnesses. The case of Tommy Koh is still fresh in our minds. I have read how the Un-American Committee works in America and I have read also how thousands and millions of pounds have been put aside for the secret police in the United Kingdom. But all of us know that these informers do not speak the truth. They cannot speak the truth and all of them mix a little truth with lots of falsehood. The very nature of spying itself requires that they keep on lying. They spy and lie all the time. An undercover agent has to deceive associates into thinking him to be one of themselves. And the longer the spies and informers are at their jobs the greater is the blurring of the thin line between truth and falsehood. These spies, in order to gain the good favours of their superiors, very, very often have great imagination. The imagination turns to beautiful embroidery and fabrication of events that did not take place and of words that were never said. Moreover, there is no possibility of verifying the reports of spies and informers. The mistakes of doctors and accountants can be checked, but the only witness to so-called conspiracy is the victim the spy wants to punish. Under those circumstances, how can we ever believe the words of these spies and informers the weight of whose information the P.A.P. Government depends on so heavily? The obsession about anti-Communism and so-called security have merely degenerated into outright attacks on freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly. For those who seek employment, there is the screening apparatus and the P.A.P. has made full use of this to deny many innocent persons of their means of livelihood. There are scare-headlines of the Communist menace like the Straits Times poster headline this morning of "inquiry of Reds in trade unions." I am sure tomorrow's headline will carry further dangers of Red infiltration in Singapore. These are all intended to strike fear into the hearts of the ordinary man in the Street and to restrain him and to silence him and to caution him, if he should be brave enough to oppose the P.A.P., to be careful. In Singapore today, because of the Special Branch and the exploitation of anti-Communism by the P.A.P., there is, as I have said, fear in many places - fear of being named by the Special Branch to be linked with the Barisan Sosialis, so much so' that there is also fear of coming out boldly in support of just causes and movements for the improvement of the livelihood of the workers ---

Who wrote that for you?

--- and fear of being seen by Special Branch informers attending Barisan Sosialis rallies. The Prime Minister himself said a little while back that it was to see who attended our rally that he gave us a permit for our rally. The Special Branch men were there to intimidate all who attended our rally. Then again, there i5 fear of openly buying anti-P.A.P. newspapers, like the Plebeian, and there is fear of buying reading material, books and literature which are considered undesirable by the Special Branch; the fear of being seen to be chummy and friendly with Barisan Sosialis leaders, and so on. Let me now deal a little bit with the so-called concurrence of the three parties and the security of the State. The I.S.C. statement stresses concurrence of the three parties - the British, the Federation and the Singapore Governments - on the arrests on 2nd February, 1963. It was not just because the United Kingdom wants to take repressive action, not just because the Federation wants to arrest anybody, not - just he cause the Singapore Government wants to lock someone up, not because any one of the Troika of the I.S.C., but because all the three - the British, the Federation, and the Singapore Governments - concur and want to take repressive action. The Prime Minister calls this the wisdom of the P.A.P. But why this emphasis? The answer is simple, it is obvious that none of the three alone would like to face the music of (he wrath of the people. But let us first find out why the British and the Federation Governments want to take repressive action. The British are cunning and experienced colonialists. They have been at the game for hundreds of years and from past experience they know that repressive action of any sort will only engender resentment and bitter hatred among the people. If the British alone were to take any repressive action, they alone would become the object of opprobrium and hatred of the people, They would therefore prefer that repressive action be taken by stooges, if possible. It would take away the sharp edge of criticism of world opinion against them. The stooges would then have to share and even take the brunt of resentment and hatred that such repressive action would cause. Moreover, it would allow the British to present themselves still as democrats. And if embarrassing questions are asked in the British Parliament, for instance, they could pass the buck on to the local Government and their stooges, and let them fend for themselves. Thus we see the pantomime enacted in the British Parliament immediately after the arrests. In the U.K. Hansard of 4th February, 1963, col. 37, Mr Warbey is quoted to have said: `The Secretary of State said that the people who have been arrested were all known Communists, engaged in subversive activities. Can we take it, then, that all of them will he immediately put on trial?' And then Mr Sandys replied: `That will be for the Government of Singapore.' Just one small sweet sentence: "That will be for the Government of Singapore." [Interruption]

Order.

Yes, the British imperialists are the arch enemies of the people, but their stooges, the P.A.P. Ministers of Singapore, will have to answer to the people. Here we see how the British work: they always leave the unpleasant things to be answered by their stooges, like the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister opposite. With this aim in view, the British had for a long time cajoled and egged the P.A.P. on, praising the cleverness, intelligence, ingenuity, brilliance, and what-not, of the P.A.P. leadership and leading them on by the nose and soft-soaping them all the way. In 1959, fearing the strength of the working class support for the policies which the Prime Minister then pretended to adhere to, the British had done everything they could to prevent the P.A.P from gaining power. But the popular will at that time could not be thwarted, and in spite of the British the P.A.P. came to power in 1959. Since they could not prevent the P.A.P. from coming into office, they did the next best thing. They manoeuvred and engineered a situation such that the personal interests of the P.A.P. leadership would coincide with the interests of the British. Once their interests coincide, they would then goad the P.A.P. into taking repressive action as part of their desperate efforts to check the advance of the growing strength of the anti-colonial movement. In this manner the British would achieve the objective of protecting and preserving their interests in the area and, of course, getting the stooges to do the dirty work for them. What is this situation that has been engineered and manoeuvred by the colonial master? It is the situation that has arisen with, and is the result of, the development of Malaysia. It has already placed the P.A.P. in the most absurd and ridiculous position of a political Party that professees to be anti-colonial having to fight instead the battles for the colonial master and having to defend colonialism against the masses. It is not the British that has to sell the idea of Malaysia, but their No. 1 salesman - the Lee Kuan Yew clique - that travels all round the world hoping to deceive other countries about Malaysia. It is Lee Kuan Yew and Company and not the British who are the most vociferous and demonstrative in the propaganda promotion and defence of Malaysia. It is the P.A.P. that had to rig the referendum and not the British, though with British connivance, in order to give a false and distorted impression of the wishes of the people of Singapore to the outside world. And inflated indeed was the Prime Minister with artificial colonial pomp and prestige. He was showered with praise from the colonial master. Finally today the ridiculous position in which the P.A.P. has found itself has caused it to take repressive action against the people of Singapore, a treachery which will condemn the P.A.P. for generations to come. The British lion indeed has very seductively and cunningly manoeuvred the P.A.P into a situation where the P.A.P. willy-nilly becomes the handmaid and errand boy of British imperialism. The British want to protect and preserve their interests so that they may continue to exploit the resources in the region: and this they have apparently temporarily succeeded in so doing, thanks to the mass arrests. Thanks to the collaboration of their minions and stooges in the P.A P. For the British, therefore, to concur with the repressive action on 2nd February, 1963, or at any time for that matter, is not difficult to understand. The history of the United Kingdom and the history of the British Empire abound with such repressive actions. Pick up any history book, even a British one, and we see repression and oppression written on every page - repression which they have euphemistically called "the glory of Empire building". Now, what of the Federation Government? The Federation Government is a Right-wing, feudalistic Government. It represents the interests of the feudalists, the Right-wing reactionary compradores and the privileged few. The U.M.N.O. Alliance, catering for opportunists, communalists and political careerists, have long been schooled and nurtured by the British as their faithful ally, collaborator and agent, so that they may continue to look after British interests. In so doing, they of course look after their own interests as well, the privileged and the selected few. The interests of the vast majority of the people - of the workers, farmers and fishermen - are but of secondary importance to them. The reactionary Government in the Federation fears the growing strength of the socialist forces and, dominated by the communal and sectional interests, it has already from time to time made arrests of anti-colonial forces to prevent them from reaching and enlightening the masses in the rural areas. The Alliance would prefer to benumb the masses with communal propaganda and prevent them from knowing the real causes and root of their poverty. The situation in Singapore is different compared to that in the Federation. Here the masses through years of anti-colonial struggle have gained a better insight into the workings of colonial propaganda. They know that their interests coincide with the interests of the working class as a whole and, with the guidance and leadership of a strong Left-wing movement, they are daily marching forward with the advance of socialist forces. The Federation Government, being reactionary and feudalistic, therefore, fears a strong Left-wing movement in Singapore. Communally-inspired politicians in the Federation fear that the influence of Left-wing forces will extend to the Federation. They fear that Singapore will become a "Cuba", as the Prime Minister says, and just as President Kennedy wants to remove the so-called subversion of Cuba, so the Federation politicians today want to contain and control and, if possible, completely suppress the Left-wing movement in Singapore. Mr Emmanuel Pelaez, Vice-President of the Philippines, had said in London that they were given to understand that the primary purpose of the proposed Federation of Malaysia is, as it were, to "sterilise" Singapore as a centre of so-called Communist influence. In addition, should Malaysia really be imposed on the people against their will through the use of brute force and in complete disregard of the danger signals, the Left-wing forces in Singapore could still become a constant headache, to say the least, to whatever Grand Alliance the Tunku and pro-Malaysia forces may be able to form in Malaya and in the Borneo territories. Under the circumstances, the Federation most certainly would like to remove all strong opposition in Singapore whenever possible. So the Federation's concurrence with the arrests on 2nd February is also not unexpected. The British agree to the arrests and the Federation agrees to the arrests; and what does the P.A.P. do? Being stooges and lackeys of the British, the P.A.P. has to listen to its master's voice and carry out its master's instructions. Moreover, the P.A.P. has its own selfish reasons for joining the British and the Federation Governments in their dirty work. I will come to more of this by and by. But fearful of repercussions following the arrests and hoping to confuse public opinion and hoping to deceive a section of the people, the P.A.P. comes out with those high-sounding words, "security of the State". And according to the Prime Minister, repressive actions had to be taken and mass arrests carried out on 2nd February because the so-called Communist front men in the Barisan Sosialis constitute a danger to the security of Singapore and to the other territories that go to form Malaysia. The reason which the Straits Times, the mouthpiece of the colonialists and the imperialists, praised so forcefully that its editorial on the 4th of February states:- `Justification for their arrests could hardly be argued more powerfully than that.' "More powerfully than that". What a pat on the back for the P.A.P. - and from the mouthpiece of the colonial master too - like the pat on the back of a dog from its master! But let us take a look at the so-called powerful argument and see what the argument really amounts to. "A danger to the security of Singapore" - such a high-sounding justification for the arrests. But under the cloak of these four magical words, "security of the State", all the sins in the world have been committed throughout the ages. On the excuse to safeguard the security of the State, the most blatant cases of imperialist aggression, exploitation and enslavement of countless weaker nations have been perpetrated and so-called "justified". To safeguard the security of the State, the tyrants and Fascist dictators have resorted to repressive actions at home and abroad: at home, to preserve the privileges of the tyrannical ruling class; and abroad, to exploit and oppress other weaker and less developed nations. For the security of the State, demands of the people for urgent reforms have been rejected out of hand, and their legitimate rights and aspirations denied and suppressed. In the name of the security of the State, the most fundamental rights of man have been violated, justice denied, democracy trampled underfoot. Under the cloak of this high-sounding phrase, the four magical words "security of the State", millions and millions of people have been tortured and enslaved, oppressed and exploited. Under the cloak of the security of the State, the foreign master rules over an unwilling subject people with an iron hand, and they are not even given a chance to determine their own future. Sir, history abounds with lurid examples of the grave abuse of these four simple words in every country, in every epoch, and in every age. Thus, to safeguard the security of the State, Hitler unleashed the world war on the people and had millions of Jews murdered. Similarly, to safeguard the security of the State, South Africa today practises apartheid, racial segregation and discrimination, and denies the true sons of the soil of their most basic and fundamental human rights. A few years go, to safeguard the security of the State, Eden ordered the invasion of the Suez Canal and the United Arab Republic.

What about Budapest?

And only a few months ago, to safeguard the security of the State, Kennedy threatened to invade Cuba and bring about a nuclear destruction of the world.

Stalin?

Do we need more examples? Nearer home, we see, Sir, in South Vietnam ---

Stalin?

--- under the cloak of the security of the State, democracy being trampled under-foot with millions of people subjected to the most humiliating tortures and denied the most fundamental of human rights. In Malaya and the whole of South-East Asia during the war. Japanese Fascist warlords committed the most brutal atrocities, again under the cloak of the security of the State. In our own Singapore, on the same excuse of safeguarding the security of the State, the most repressive actions had been perpetrated by the colonial forces and mercenary troops against the people of Singapore, with the loss of many innocent lives. Tun Lim Yew Hock Government followed the path of the colonial master and similarly gave the same trite excuse in the 1956 and 1957 purges, and was roundly condemned by the people of Singapore. Indeed the Prime Minister himself was one of those who most roundly condemned the Lim Yew Hock repression. Now, of course, the Prime Minister sings a different tune. Since 2nd February, the Lee Kuan Yew Government has been treading the same desperate path. Even the Prime Minister is mouthing the same time-worn excuse, with the forlorn hope that, if it was repeated often enough, it might exonerate the P.A.P. from all blame and save the P.A.P. from the wrath and condemnation of the people. Since so much force is given to this trite phrase and since the persons now detained have been alleged to have constituted a danger to the security of Singapore, let us ask: what do the British, the Federation and the P.A.P. mean by these words? If they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the other arrested persons constitute a danger to the security of the vested interests of the foreign overlord and colonial master, of foreign monopoly-capitalists and the privileged few, then we say it is true and correct. If they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the arrested persons constitute a danger to the security of the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation and to the security of the forces of reaction and repression and tyranny, then, again we say it is true and correct. If they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the arrested persons constitute a danger to the system of discrimination, inequality, injustice, Fascism and enslavement, then again we say it is true and correct. The Barisan Sosialis, Sir, is pledged to eradicate colonialism and foreign domination from whatever source. We pledge ourselves to removing the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation. We dedicate ourselves to the struggle against the system of discrimination, inequality, injustice, Fascism, and enslavement. And we are proud of all this. We feel elated that we have constituted a danger to the security of all the hindrances and obstructions to progress and to the forward development of society. We want to get rid of all these hindrances and obstructions.

All words.

But if they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the arrested persons constitute a danger to the basic interests of the workers, peasants, fishermen, intellectuals, and national businessmen, then we emphatically say it is not true. And if they mean we constitute a danger to the oppressed, the exploited, the enslaved, the under-privileged, the down-trodden and dispossessed, then again we emphatically say it is not true. We in the Barisan Sosialis dedicate ourselves to the struggle for the fundamental rights of man, namely, justice, equality, democracy, freedom, and the right of self-determination.

Order. I take it that the hon. Member will take some time and, if I am correct, I think it is time I gave a rest to members of our staff, the Interpreters, and the Reporters. We have not such a big staff. I therefore propose to suspend for twenty-five minutes. I will take this Chair again at two o'clock a.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.36 a.m. until 2.00 a.m. Sitting resumed at 2.00 a.m., 10th April, 1963

Debate resumed.

As I was saying, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis dedicate ourselves to the struggle for freedom, for the fundamental rights of man, justice and equality; and we are pledged to the struggle for a society with no exploitation of man by man. We are pledged to the struggle to eradicate poverty, disease, ignorance and want. In other words, we are pledged to fight for the interests of the common man, namely, the oppressed, the exploited, the underprivileged and the dispossessed. We cannot, therefore, constitute a danger to the interests of the common man, the oppressed, the exploited, the under-privileged and the dispossessed. We fight, Sir, for the interests of the workers, the peasants, the fishermen, the hawkers, the taxi-drivers, the bus workers, the small businessmen, the national businessmen, the intellectuals, and all who believe in an equal and just society. Their interests are our interests, and their struggle is our struggle. We in the Barisan Sosialis, therefore, constitute a danger to no one except the colonialist, the imperialist, the exploiter, the oppressor and the Fascist tyrant and their hangers-on and parasites. We constitute a danger only to imperialism, colonialism and their stooges, and to the enemy of the people. Ours is a tough and hard struggle, but we are proud of our struggle. Millions of people all over the world - in Asia, Africa, Europe and America - are similarly embarked on the same struggle. We are therefore not alone. We have friends all over the world who give us solidarity support. It is only a matter of time before all our efforts will be crowned with success. No one can stop the wheels of history from moving forward. The advance may be slow or fast, but we advance. We struggle today for what, not so very long ago, the P.A.P. leaders themselves had also claimed to struggle for, and had pretended to struggle for. Yet the P.A.P. Ministers allege that we are dangerous men. How could our struggle, which the P.A.P. also claimed not so very long ago to be their struggle, constitute a danger to the security of Singapore? It simply does not add up. We feel honoured indeed that we constitute a danger to imperialism and colonialism. It merely shows our strength. But if the Barisan Sosialis constitute a danger to colonialism which, not so long ago, was also the professed enemy of the P.A.P., should not the P.A.P. then be satisfied that at least others have succeeded where the P.A.P. has failed? Is not the eradication of colonialism what the vast majority of the people of Singapore, in the Federation, and in the Borneo territories, are struggling for, and are thirsting for? How then could this danger to imperialism and colonialism constitute a danger to the security of Singapore which, after all, belongs to all the people in the island? Does the Prime Minister not see how absurd and ridiculous and contradictory he is? One would have thought that any action by any political Party that constitutes a danger to imperialism and colonialism would be welcomed by other political Parties that have anti-colonialism as their main objective. Only the colonialists, pro-colonialists, and their stooges need be perturbed by strong anti-colonial action from any quarter. Only the enemies of the people need fear our anti-colonial struggle. We can understand the British colonialists and their feudalist allies in the Federation being perturbed by our action. Our struggle is directed against the vested interests of the colonialists and the feudalists ---

Order. May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is, in fact, repeating his arguments? He has been on one theme for about half an hour now, and I would suggest that he has made his point on that particular theme, and that he pass on to the next.

But I have yet quite a lot to develop on the theme, it follows in the arguments, Sir.

I can only suggest to the hon. Member his course, and if his repetition becomes tedious, he knows the action the Chair must take.

It is not repetitious, Sir. You will find that it is different at every stage of the argument. As I have said, Sir, we can understand the British colonialists and their feudalist allies in the Federation being perturbed by our action. Our struggle is directed against the vested interests of the colonialists and the feudalists, and we have openly said so. But it appears the P.A.P. too is most perturbed by our anti-colonial action; so perturbed and so alarmed, in fact, that the P.A.P. has to join the colonial forces to take urgent repressive action against the Barisan Sosialis and other anti-colonial stalwarts immediately and not be left until the 31st of August. Are these really justifiable reasons for taking repressive action against the people? No. A thousand times no. Let there be no doubts in our minds as to what we stand for. Lest I be accused of again being repetitious, let me just say once more that we stand for the rights of the exploited and the oppressed, and we stand for justice, equality, democracy, self-determination and freedom. These are the hopes and aspirations not only of the Barisan Sosialis but also of the vast majority of the people, not only in Singapore, the Federation and the Borneo territories, but also the world over. No one need fear the realisation of these hopes and aspirations. The only forces that need fear and oppose the realisation of these hopes and aspirations are the forces of the enemies of the people. Today because the colonialists want to retain the vested interests and deprive the people of their legitimate rights and aspirations, they have not hesitated to resort to arrests and detentions of anti-colonial stalwarts in a desperate attempt to slow down and impede the advance of the movement for colonial freedom. But these are only their death throes before final destruction and elimination. This has been proved many times over in history. For an elected Government now to forgo the interests of the people and instead, for selfish reasons, now to go into cahoots with the colonialists and imperialists in order to further exploit and oppress the people, is absolutely unforgivable. There can be no justification whatsoever for the arrests. In the context of Singapore today, when Singapore is still a colony, a danger to the security of Singapore can only mean a danger to the security of colonial interests. For an elected Government to use the trite phrase of - "a danger to the security of Singapore" as a cloak to arrest political opponents, merely shows how bankrupt and ruthless the P.A.P. leaders have become. Repressive action should never have been taken against persons who fight for the interests of the vast majority of the people. "Political detainees are and indeed should be regarded as an anomaly in a democratic society." So say Devan Nair and Jek Yuen Thong, both top brass of the P.A.P. From a P.A.P. admission, it is clear that repressive action should never have been taken. If repressive action must be taken, let it be taken against those who wax rich through the exploitation and oppression of others, and those who continue to help impose foreign rule over us in Malaya. To stress on the three Governments concurring in the arrests does not add any weight to the argument. It only shows that they are trying to prop up weak and untenable arguments by the weight of numbers. It might allow one party to shift and manoeuvre, and to pass the buck to others in an attempt to escape the justifiable and inevitable hatred and opprobrium of the people. It can show how closely allied is the P.A.P. to reaction, feudalism, colonialism and imperialism. But it adds nothing to the strength of their arguments. For the P.A.P. to gloat over the fact that the decision for repressive action was not the P.A.P.'s alone, but of three Governments together, only further shows that the P.A.P. does not truly believe in the so-called justification for the arrests! I do not need to go into the shameful episode of the P.A.P. trying to pass the buck to the British and the Federation for the arrests. Knowing how abhorrent such repressive action is the P.A.P. leaders do not even have the guts to stand up to so-called "justify" - the unjustifiable arrests. The verdict of the people indeed is a terrible thing. It frightens the insides of the P.A.P. Ministers. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have too often been accused of being anti-national. And because of the P.A.P. control of the radio, Rediffusion and the Press, the voice of the Barisan Sosialis has not been easily heard. Just what is meant by being a nationalist? When we talk of a person being a nationalist, we mean that he places national interests above sectional and personal interests. On the other hand, if a person places sectional and personal interests above national interests, then he becomes anti-national. Personal interests are interests of the individual; for example, the personal ambitions of power and wealth of P.A.P. Ministers. Sectional interests are interests of small groups of people, for example, the vested interests of foreign monopoly-capitalists and of the compradores and feudalists. But what are national interests? National interests are the basic interests of the country and of its people. They are the interests of the vast majority of the people. And these interests are the interests of the toiling masses - the workers, peasants, hawkers, shop assistants, intellectuals, small businessmen and national businessmen. We have been under colonial rule for 150 years. We are still under the heel of foreign domination. The country's wealth has been taken away to enrich the colonialists and the imperialists. And we are still being oppressed and exploited. A true nationalist, therefore, is he who looks after the interests of the exploited and oppressed, and he who fights to eradicate colonialism and imperialism. A nationalist is he who struggles to strengthen the unity of the people, without distinction of race, colour or creed, to rid our country of foreign domination. A nationalist is he who struggles to improve the livelihood of the toiling masses. He who helps the colonialists and the imperialists to enslave the people is anti-national. He who seeks to destroy the unity of the people by playing on their communal fears is anti-national. He who collaborates with the foreigners and the colonialists, and promotes colonial schemes to enslave the people is anti-national. And he who helps to keep foreign troops on our soil to suppress the legitimate aspirations of the people is anti-national. Of course, some politicians try to equate personal and sectional interests with national interests. In this way, opportunities, like those in the P.A.P., would then call themselves nationalists in order to confuse and deceive the people. Let us now ask the Prime Minister and his other Ministers a few simple questions. Who is collaborating with the colonialists today? Who is the errand boy of the imperialists today? Who is promoting the British-sponsored Malaysia today? Who is selling our country to a foreign power today? Who is collaborating to subjugate the peoples of the Federation, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah under colonial domination and denying them their fundamental rights of self-determination and independence? Who wants to keep foreign troops on our soil for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of the people? And who is trying to justify the use of the British bases for the suppression of the national liberation struggle in Kalimantan Utara? The answer is clear to all in Singapore. It is none other than the Prime Minister and his traitorous clique. It is the P.A.P. that is collaborating with the foreign powers. It is the P.A.P. that is running errands for the imperialists. It is the P.A.P. that is promoting British-sponsored Malaysia. It is the P.A.P. that is collaborating to subjugate the peoples of the Federation, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah under colonial domination. It is the P.A.P. that is denying them their fundamental rights of self-determination and independence. And it is the P.A.P. again that wants to keep foreign troops on our soil for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of our peoples. The Prime Minister in his tour of the constituency in Sembawang spoke very lovingly of the British bases now in Singapore, and he tried to impress on the people of Singapore that unless they have the bases they would lose their jobs. Who then is trying to keep foreign troops on our soil? The anti-colonial elements are, therefore, as can be seen from my arguments, in the P.A.P. We here and now charge the P.A.P. as the anti-nationalist elements of our country, collaborating with foreign colonialists to control and dominate our country at the expense of our people! The P.A.P. clique are the out-and-out anti-nationals, the traitors who have sold the rights of our people - the workers, peasants, hawkers, taxi-drivers and students - down the drain! Yes, the P.A.P., the anti-national traitors masquerading as nationalists. That answers this anti-nationalist allegation of the P.A.P. Now let me turn to the question of the allegation that the Barisan Sosialis wants to resort to armed struggle, violence and bloodshed. Sir, our open support for the Brunei uprising has been mentioned as one of the immediate reasons that had led the Internal Security Council to decide on repressive action. The I.S.C. statement reads: `They have professed to be working constitutional1y for democratic ends. But their open support for armed revolt in Brunei and their close connections with leaders of the revolt show that they are ready when the opportunity occurs to depart from constitutional methods and to jeopardise national defence and Singapore's security by joining with groups resorting to violence and blood-shed as in the Borneo Territories.' With this they attempt to establish the so-called connection between the uprising in Brunei and the Barisan Sosialis and other persons arrested in Singapore. The Straits Times especially gave great prominence and front page headlines to what it called the "link" between the uprising in Brunei and the Barisan Sosialis and arrested persons in Singapore. Because Lim Ching Siong had met the Brunei leader, A. M. Azahari, in Singapore four days before the uprising, so according to the colonialists, this is proof of some hidden conspiracy between the two. But let us ask: What is so secret about this meeting for which the Straits Times gave such prominent headlines? Can the P.A.P. inform us what took place at this meeting?; what was said at the meeting?; what actually transpired? A little while back the Prime Minister also talked of the meeting in Nee Soon and people travelling in Car SR. 5222. What is wrong with people travelling in cars?; what is wrong with people going about? What is all this that they are trying to bring out? Sir, I have always thought that the Prime Minister had some originality in him when he talked about the "Plen" and things like that. But to my surprise, I see that he has been plagiarising what has been published in the book called "The Jungle is Neutral". At page 203 of this book called "The Jungle is Neutral", written by F. Spencer Chapman, D.S.O., a person who was sent into the jungle to fight the Japanese. I see this very interesting paragraph. It is only a few lines and I will read it out to you. Sir. At page 203 under the chapter "Force 136", it says that "when Chin Peng first met Davis at Sigari in September, he agreed to convene a conference with a plenipotentiary from Guerilla General Headquarters. Owing to the tardiness of their communications, it was not until the 1st January, 1944, that this man reached our camp at Blantar. He became known to us as the "Plen" and that is the name which I shall use for him in these pages." Now that I find this, I am just wondering what our Prime Minister has been doing? This book says here in the first page, even before you start reading the story: "This book is copyright. No portion of it may be reproduced in any process without written permission." I do not know whether the Prime Minister has had permission from Mr Chapman about the name of the "Plen". He has been having stories broadcast over the radio, but at least let us hope in future that our Prime Minister will show more originality. Regarding this meeting between Mr Lim Ching Siong and Azahari, we ask: What is so peculiar, what is so unusual about that? If plotting or subversion is discovered, what is the plot - and what is the subversion? Why do they not inform the people of it? All these stories of wanting to buy arms and what-not are stories given to our Prime Minister by informers and spies - people who cannot be trusted, people who will even sell their own fathers in order to earn some extra money. Can they really be trusted? The Legislative Assembly, the radio. Rediffusion and the Press are all available to the P.A.P. Let them give us all the stories about the true "links" and the connections. Sir, as leaders of political Parties with common objectives, like our common opposition to neo-colonial Malaysia, and being co-members of the same socialist conference, from which the P.A.P. was ejected, it is only natural and normal that they should meet frequently and whenever the opportunity occurs, for the exchange of views and opinions about political developments, as well as for the promotion and strengthening of friendly co-operation and friendly ties. A. M. Azahari is the President of the Party Rakyat of Brunei, the Party that won all the 55 seats in the recent elections in Brunei. His views definitely carry weight. Even the colonial mouthpiece, the Straits Times, said so. It is only to be expected, therefore, that we in the Barisan Sosialis should meet him for the exchange of views whenever possible and indeed many of us have met Azahari and discussed political events with him on many occasions. Azahari attended our inaugural meeting and spoke at the rally in the Happy World Stadium in September 1961. He also signed a joint statement together with the Chairman of the Federation Socialist Front, Mr Ishak, and myself on the occasion of that visit. Other political leaders too had visited us in Singapore at various times in the past and we on our part had also visited political leaders in the Federation, Sarawak and Brunei, not with those sinister motives as alleged by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went to Moscow, I do not know whether he went there to conspire with the Communists or what. Surely, no one should be hound to his home. Surely, as political leaders, we should have a chance to go about and meet people who deal with the same subject and have the same common objectives. Similarly today, Federation Ministers, P.A.P. Minister and other political leaders too have many times been to see politicians in Kuching and Jesselton. Our meetings with Azahari in Singapore were therefore nothing unusual. Such meetings take place in the normal course of events. On the contrary, it would indeed be unusual and abnormal if there were no such meetings. For obvious reasons, the P.A.P. and the Straits Times have now gone out of their way to paint innocent, open and normal events with loud and lurid colours. Ordinary everyday happenings are twisted and distorted into something furtive, secretive and mysterious. Yet all the so-called mysterious meetings were open secrets. Even the Straits Times again admitted so in their editorial of 4th February, 1963. Azahari had been in the Barisan Sosialis' headquarters on several occasions and many of us had met him and talked to him. But, of course, the P.A.P. concocts mystery thrillers out of such normal meetings. And because of Lim Ching Siong meeting Azahari four days before the uprising in Brunei. There has grown from it this so-called "link" through Said Zahari. This so-called "link" is dramatised and given a sensational front page play-up. All in order to create the impression of some super front page conspiracy very luckily and very timely discovered, of course, by the sharp prying eyes of the Prime Minister and the Special Branch. But for which a major catastrophe would have befallen the people of Singapore! Such is the fairy tale of the British lion and the P.A.P. dog - the running dog! The Straits Times representing vested interests can of course, be expected to help the British, the Federation and incidentally the P.A.P., to influence public opinion against the arrested persons. But in spite of all the efforts of the Straits Times to spotlight this so-called "link" and this so-called "conspiracy", the people of - Singapore still cannot understand why the arrests were necessary. Even the Straits Times editorial of 4th February, 163, complained that the Government case was weak and unconvincing. The Straits Times editorial of 4th February states: `The statement issued by the Internal Security council has little in it that has not been hashed and rehashed in the newspaper for months past, except perhaps for the dealings which Azahari had with Barisan Sosialis leaders and even these contacts were an open secret.' The editorial went on to hope for the publication of "the full [I am reading from a few lines above what I have just quoted] or at least a fuller story of the circumstances which forced the I.S.C. to take strong measures before it was too late." In other words, even the Straits Times admitted that there was no justification in fact for the arrests! Yes, there was no justifiable excuse whatsoever for the arrests. What are the circumstances which, according to the Straits Times, "forced the I.S.C. to take strong measure before it was too late"? Was it because we held a rally in support of the Brunei uprising? True, we held a rally in Tanjong Katong Road two weeks after the uprising in support of the Brunei National Liberation Movement. We applied for permission for the rally, clearly stating the reason for the rally in the application for the permits, and the permit was granted for a rally clearly staged to support the national uprising in Brunei. So it was all open and lawful. The Government had given us lawful permission to hold a rally in support of Brunei. So obviously there was nothing wrong with the lawful rally for which a permit was issued by the P.A.P. Government. We have not taken up arms against the Government. We merely held a rally to voice our support in a legitimate democratic manner for an anti-colonial struggle in Brunei. Just as the P.A.P. and the Alliance Government had voiced their support for the anti-colonial struggle in Algeria only two years ago. On that occasion a rally was held in front of the Padang in which even the employers were specifically told to let workers get off earlier so that they could go to listen to Dr Ferhat Abbas and the Prime Minister. In that mass rally, the Prime Minister had spoken with staged feelings and had exhorted the people of Singapore to learn from the anti-colonial struggle of the Algerian people against the French imperialists. Of course, the Prime Minister then was only trying to deceive the people. Then, if you will remember, Sir, in this very House a few weeks later the Government went a stage further and moved a motion to contribute $10,000 to the Algerian fund as a token of sympathy and support and asked the House to record its admiration for the determination and courage of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of French colonialism; and on behalf of the people of Singapore expressed its wholehearted support for the cause of freedom for the Algerian people. In the ensuing debate all P.A.P. leaders spoke brave, inspiring words. Even Members of the Right-wing S.P.A. joined in the chorus. Let me refer you, Sir, to Hansard, Volume 14, No. 13 of 22nd February, 1961. May I refer you to column 1020? It is a pity the Minister for Culture is not here because he had spoken in paragraph 4 at column 1020 of "the rising tide of nationalism" and the "dyke of repression against the tidal wave of nationalist revolt, and how the dyke broke and colonialism was swept into the sea." Very inspiring words, Sir, and at that time I was taken in myself. I have mentioned paragraph 3. It was paragraph 4. Then in column 1021 on the next page, the third paragraph, somewhere in the middle, the Minister for Culture said: `Therefore, when confronted by the assertions of Algerian nationalism and Algerian demands for freedom, the French colons, backed by French generals, are trying to counter Algerian nationalism with repression and terror. It was French extremism which forced a moderate and conciliatory Algerian nationalism to resist French repression and violence with violence of its own.'. Sir, these are words which nobody who calls himself an anti-colonialist can can quarrel with. And they are inspiring words. But let us just substitute the word "British" for the word "French" and the word "Brunei" for the word "Algeria", and the quote now reads as follows: `Therefore, when confronted by the assertions of Bruneian nationalism and Bruneian demands for freedom, the British colons, backed by British generals, are trying to counter Bruneian nationalism with repression and terror. It was British extremism which forced a moderate and conciliatory Bruneian nationalism to resist British repression and violence with violence of its own.' It is a pity, Sir, that the Ministers do not listen to their own words because if they did they would see how ridiculous they have been in their accusations and allegations that we are supporting the Brunei uprising and resorting to violence and bloodshed. Then in column 1030 - this time the Deputy Prime Minister talked of the "mutual feelings of sympathy between the Provisional Government of the Algerian leaders and ourselves in Singapore because Singapore is still a colony, a semi-colony." Then he said in the second paragraph, near the end: `It is because of this understanding of peoples who have in the past been under colonial domination that we, the P.A.P. Government, have moved this motion in support of the Algerian people's struggle for independence against French imperialism.' Again beautiful words, words which no anti-colonialist could disagree with. But, again, let us substitute the word "Brunei" for the word "Algeria" and the word "British" for the word "French" and the meaning again is very clear. It would read: `It is because of this understanding of peoples who have in the past been under colonial domination that we, the P.A.P. Government, have moved this motion in support of the Brunei people's struggle for independence against British imperialism.' Let me go just a little further ---

Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member that he is labouring on a point which he has already made. He has made the point. Can we proceed a little quicker with this debate?

I understand your impatience, Sir. Similarly, have I not wanted to stay up until this late hour ---

Order. The complaint is not the late hour. The complaint is that the hon. Member is labouring a point which he has already made. And in a debate, once a Member, or once any debater has made a point, surely he should be satisfied and not labour the point.

Very well, Sir, I thought of just quoting the Member for Tanglin, but anyway, he is not here. However, I must quote the Prime Minister. In column 1032 the Prime Minister talks of the necessity to make a gesture in the forum of world debate to show what we think of the French imperialists. He says in column 1032: `But it is significant that in a world in which total war means total annihilation, the conflict is reduced to a secondary plane of a limited war with unlimited world support. There is pressure in the United Nations. There are expressions of sympathy and solidarity and we throw in our voice in support of the chorus on behalf of the freedom of the people of Algeria.' All I need say, Sir, is to substitute the word "British" for "French" and the word "Brunei" for "Algeria" and we see that there is fundamentally no difference between the situation then and the situation today. If you will remember that debate, the Government finally asked the Assembly to pass a resolution which, if you were to leave out the second part of money contribution and if we substituted the appropriate words to fit in with the context of our present situation, would read as follows: `That this Assembly records its admiration for the determination and courage of the Brunei people in the struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of British colonialism and on behalf of the people of Singapore expresses its whole-hearted support for the cause for freedom for the Brunei people.' Wholehearted support for the freedom for the Brunei people! Sir, our rally at Tanjong Katong held on the 23rd December, 1962, did not have the support of the Legislative Assembly, and we could not presume to speak on behalf of all the people of Singapore. But we did hold the rally to demonstrate our whole-hearted support for the people of Brunei openly and for all to see. It was not done furtively. In our rally we did exactly what the P.A.P. had previously done in another rally as well as officially in the Singapore Legislative Assembly on behalf of the people of Singapore. Today, we in the Barisan also admire the courage and determination of the people of Brunei' in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of British colonialism. We in the Barisan call on the people to give whole-hearted support for the cause of freedom of the people in Brunei. Can it be that support for the cause of freedom against the French was correct and that against the British is wrong? Can it be that we must condemn French colonialism, but must love, admire and protect British colonialism? Is that what the P.A.P. want? If our support today for the Brunei people was wrong and unlawful, then similarly the P.A.P. and Assembly support in 1961 for the Algerian people was wrong and unlawful. If the admiration for the courage and determination of the Brunei people to be free was wrong and unlawful, then similarly the feigned P.A.P. admiration for the courage and determination of the Algerian people was wrong and unlawful. There cannot be two different standards of moral values. No one has suggested that feigned P.A.P. admiration for the courage and determination of the Algerian people to be free and feigned P.A.P. support of the Algerian struggle for freedom was wrong and unlawful. In fact, only a few months back, the P.A.P. took great pride in, and gave full publicity to, its past so-called support of the Algerian struggle. So how can anyone suggest that our support and admiration for the courage and determination of the Brunei people's struggle for freedom is wrong and unlawful? Or is it seriously suggested that what is done by the P.A.P. is right and lawful, but what is similarly done by other people becomes wrong and unlawful? Is there one law for the P.A.P. and another law for the rest of the people? Is that what is troubling us today in Singapore? Does being the Government make the P.A.P. right in everything the P.A.P. does? Does being the Government make all the difference between right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, loyalty and subversion? The Prime Minister himself had feigned support for anti-colonial struggles before, that is, until he had been unmasked as a mere opportunist and a stooge. But why this apparent turnabout, this volte-face. The I.S.C. statement goes on to say that "their open support for armed revolt in Brunei and their close connections with leaders of the revolt show that they are ready when the opportunity occurs to depart from constitutional methods and to jeopardise national defence and Singapore's security by joining with groups resorting to violence and blood-shed as in the Borneo territories." I have shown that the so-called "connection" and "link" are but fanciful concoctions of the fertile imagination of the colonialists and their stooges. The most unconnected events and happenings have been interlaced with "link" and "connections". The imagination is allowed to run riot. Everything is dominated by one obsession, namely, to prejudice public opinion against the persons whom the P.A.P. wants to fix and to destroy. We in the Barisan Sosialis want to struggle constitutionally for our political aims. But it has become increasingly difficult to continue the constitutional struggle. I have already said that door after door of the constitutional struggle has been slammed by the Fascist and arbitrary actions of the P.A.P., and the latest spate of arbitrary arrests has forced the people to consider seriously whether or not all means of such constitutional struggle have been completely closed to the Opposition. Constitutional struggle, Sir, can only be undertaken when there are constitutional means left for the people to do so. At the present moment just when the Opposition has become strong enough to overthrow the Government through the democratic one-man-one-vote process, the powers-that-be have resorted to the most unconstitutional methods of arbitrary arrests, in order to crush strong and effective opposition and to prevent the Opposition from gaining State power. They resort to repressive action under the cloak and excuse of our wanting to depart from methods of constitutional struggle. But all Singapore, all South-East Asia, know the opposite is the case. We who are genuinely and consistently conducting a constitutional struggle, are continuously thwarted by those who resort to the most undemocratic and unconstitutional repressive measure. We are accused of wanting to depart from the path of constitutional struggle by those who resort to Fascist and unconstitutional methods of repression. It is like a robber, after he has committed a robbery, calling out, "Thief! Thief!" Let us take the argument put forward by the I.S.C. one stage further. Because of our open support for the Brunei uprising, so it is alleged that we want to depart from the path of constitutional struggle! I have already mentioned the feigned P.A.P. support of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom. There was a hot war going on in Algeria with half a million French colons in the war. Did feigned P.A.P. support of the Algerian people in their war of liberation then make the P.A.P. depart from the constitutional struggle? Could we then say that the P.A.P. had embarked on the path of armed struggle? Of course not! No one would dream of saying so. Similarly our Barisan Sosialis support for the struggle of liberation in Brunei does not mean we are embarked on the path of armed struggle. It was only a token support to show our sympathy and admiration for the courage of the people of Brunei who refused to be cowed by the superior might of a nuclear power. And we might add here that, as an Opposition Party, we in the Barisan Sosialis just cannot have the same opportunities and facilities for helping armed struggle anywhere. Now with bow and arrow, parangs, wooden-spears and shotguns, the people in Borneo are fighting against jets and warships for the cause of self-determination and freedom! And they are ready to fight against overwhelming odds because their will to be free cannot be suppressed by threats and superior force. If the P.A.P. support for the Algerian people's struggle is not regarded as embarking on unconstitutional and armed struggle, so is the Barisan Sosialis' open support for the Brunei people's struggle cannot be regarded as embarking on unconstitutional and armed struggle. Indeed, we maintain it is the only correct and proper thing to do if we are genuinely anti-colonial, and if we are truly dedicated to the struggle for justice, equality and democracy, peace and freedom. But let us take the argument just one stage further. When the West Irian issue was at fever pitch, and peace was threatened in South-East Asia, volunteers from Singapore were ready to go forward to help Indonesia recover West Irian. The P.A.P. had at first ridiculed the idea of resorting to armed struggle to drive out recalcitrant Dutch Imperialism in West Irian, simply because the initial call in Singapore for support of the Indonesian demand for the recovery of West Irian had come from the Barisan Sosialis. But the P.A.P. soon found itself in an embarrassing position. Realising that the vast majority of the people in Singapore had responded to our call and were supporting the demand for the recovery of West Irian, the P.A.P. was compelled to put on the anti-colonial mask. The P.A.P. was forced to support our motion calling for support of the Indonesian struggle to recover West Irian. Later in an attempt to make capital out of the anti-colonial fervour of the people in Singapore, P.A.P. Ministers went so far as to review volunteers about to fly off for further training in Indonesia. P.A.P. Ministers gave them blessing and a rousing send-off. Full publicity was given to the Minister for Health and Law wishing the volunteers good luck at the Singapore Airport. If there was any talk of encouragement given to armed struggle, this was it. We do - not have to look any further. By I.S.C. standards, it could be said that encouragement to armed struggle was so blatant in this case that there is no point in the P.A.P. even trying to deny it. Yet the people of Singapore have never accused the P.A.P. of encouraging armed struggle. Neither have the British for that matter, so far as we know. It would have been silly, foolish and useless for them to do so. Yet today, without seeing any volunteer off, without in any way urging the people of Singapore to armed struggle, without in any way instigating disturbances, strikes or riots, we have been charged with wanting to resort to violence and bloodshed! How absurd and ridiculous can the P.A.P. become? What explanation can the P.A.P. give? As genuine anti-colonialists, we know that intransigent imperialists will never budge unless they are forced to do so. This was the case with Goa. This was the case with what was once called French Indo-China; and with what was once called the Dutch East Indies. And this again was the case with the West Irian issue. The intransigence of colonialists is proverbial. Look now what has happened in Brunei. The Brunei people have been deprived of all means of constitutional struggle. In spite of the Party Rakyat gaining all the 55 seats in the recent elections in Brunei, showing overwhelming support of the people, the elected representatives could only play the role of the Opposition. They were not permitted even to table a motion in the Council Negeri against Malaysia. Nor were they allowed to declare for independence. There were no longer any constitutional means left for the people of Brunei to oppose Malaysia. Under the circumstances, what else could the people of Brunei do? Submit to further oppression? No, Sir, there can be no doubt, no argument about it! All means of constitutional struggle were denied the people of Brunei. There was but one way out. The Brunei uprising was the inevitable result. Is it then wrong to support such a heroic struggle under the circumstances? How can our support be twisted to mean our resorting to violence and bloodshed? Have not other Afro-Asian countries similarly supported the struggle of the people of Brunei? Of the people of Kalimantan Utara? Sir, all such talk of our wanting to resort to armed struggle is therefore so much hocus-pocus, meant only to confuse and deceive the people and to give an excuse to the British, the Federation and the P.A.P. to resort to repression. There is nothing that the Barisan Sosialis has done which the P.A.P. itself has not done but a short time ago. For the P.A.P. now to claim that what the Barisan Sosialis has done is unlawful is sheer unadulterated bunkum. It will not deceive anyone. This is only the colonial way of giving us a bad name and hanging us for it. So long as effective opposition to the P.A.P. can be removed, what matters what reason is given for its removal and how the P.A.P. does it? The ruthless and unscrupulous nature of the P.A.P. is already well known. The Barisan haunts the Prime Minister and his Ministers day and night. The Barisan has too much support for the comfort of the Prime Minister. Therefore, knocking out the Barisan has become an obsession with him. From all this, it is clear that excuses given by the I.S.C. and the P.A.P. for the arrests do not hold water. The Prime Minister said on 4th February: `If it were an action by the Singapore Government, we would never have contemplated it. It would not be necessary because we would have carried on till after 31st August, 1963.' In this statement alone, Sir, the Prime Minister admits, albeit inadvertently, that there were no justifiable reasons whatsoever that necessitated the arrests. "It would not be necessary," he said. And this is confirmed in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which admits that "all was peace and tranquility" for the last seven months. Yet he now tells a story of Said Zahari having left Singapore on 1st February. Let us ask, then why did the P.A.P. carry out the arrests? I have already explained earlier on why the British and the Federation Government want to carry out the arrests. They want to protect their imperial vested interests. They want to destroy the Left-wing movement, if possible. But what of the P.A.P.? There is mention in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech of the vested interests of the P.A.P. Government. What are these vested interests? What role do these vested interests play in the arrests? You will recall that the Prime Minister made some Press statements on his return from Kuala Lumpur after the arrests. The Member for Cairnhill had put the Prime Minister on the mat for having tried to pass the blame for the arrests on to the British and Federation Governments. He asked the Prime Minister, "Why did the P.A.P. Ministers not vote against the other members of the I.S.C. if they did not support the arrests?" And the poor Prime Minister had to eat humble pie and climb down and make a second statement to the Press, this time correcting his earlier statement and agreeing in toto with the I.S.C. decision. I have no wish to go into details, but it is already on record that all three parties concurred with the arrests. So the P.A.P. cannot possibly escape censure by trying to pass the buck this time. To understand P.A.P. vested interests and why they want the arrests, we must first understand the desperate situation in which the P.A.P. finds itself today. Soon after the assumption of power on the support of the workers in 1959, the arrogance, dictatorship, exposure and Rightist deviation of P.A.P. Ministers quickly alienated the Party away from the masses. Originally 43 in an Assembly of 51, their number soon dwindled to 40 in 1960; 39 in July 1961; and finally to 26, when 13 Assemblymen walked across the Floor to form the Barisan Sosialis. 3.28 a.m.

From 43 to 26, and all in a space of two years. Who could have predicted such a complete change of fortunes for the P.A.P. in 1959? Today with only 25 seats in an Assembly of 51, the P.A.P. Government exists only on sufferance. It has to be propped up in office by the Right-wing of the Opposition. That is why when the Member for Cairnhill also pressed for a reconvening of the Legislative Assembly, the Prime Minister dared not offend him. Otherwise, he might find that overnight he is no more Prime Minister. And so terrified is the Government of meeting the people that it has not dared even to hold the by-election in Sembawang which seat was vacant since the middle of August 1962, more than seven months ago. There is no justifiable reason for such delays, but I will have more to say on this later on other motions if there is opportunity for me to do so. However, I might add in passing that if the Sembawang by-election should be further delayed, as I have indicated to the Press some months back, we would have to consider seriously bringing in amendments to the Constitution to make good the lacuna in the law which has allowed the P.A.P. to make a mockery of parliamentary democracy. Everyone can see that the P.A.P. Government is a very shaky Government. The people in the whole of Malaya know it and the P.A.P. Ministers themselves know it, but unfortunately for the P.A.P. leaders, in spite of all their desperate efforts at merger-peddling and Malaysia-selling, in spite of their bending themselves backwards to please the Federation Government, in spite of their frantically trying to buy support with bribes and trying to please all those whom they had previously despised and ridiculed, in spite of all their attempts at staged constituency visits to bolster their own sagging morale and that of opportunistic supporters, the P.A.P. nevertheless has failed to win back the support it has lost from the people. And indeed it is daily losing whatever support that still exists. It is pathetic indeed to see the arrogant P.A.P. leaders today doing everything they can, kowtowing, in fact, to ingratiate themselves with the various organisations, clan associations and exclusive clubs. What a climbdown from days of yore for these arrogant men! When in spite of all these efforts, no improvement is made and instead they are daily sinking lower and lower in the eyes of the people, it becomes obvious that the desperate P.A.P. will resort to desperate measures. The main reason why all their efforts have not got them very far is that the Barisan Sosialis stands in the way. All the sympathy and support is given to the Barisan Sosialis. Very little is left for the P.A.P. What terrifies the P.A.P. more is that while its own strength and influence is shrinking and diminishing, that of the Barisan Sosialis is rapidly expanding and growing! And that, in spite of its so-called "defeat" at the referendum! It is common knowledge that Barisan has the most popular mass support in Singapore. And it is even generally accepted that the next Singapore State Government will he a Barisan Government. Under the circumstances, it is not difficult to guess the P.A.P.'s next move. The fear of our growing strength and influence is the urgent reason for the P.A.P. decision to try and cripple and paralyse the Barisan as much as possible. Hence the decision to arrest immediately and not after 31st August, 1963. The P.A.P. leaders hope that, with the Barisan crippled and generally disabled, the people would again be faced with a situation analagous to that existing at the time of the sham referendum. You will remember that the original referendum plot was to offer unacceptable alternatives to the people. They were to be compelled to choose the lesser of two or more evils. Similarly with the arrests, The P.A.P. leaders hope that a political vacuum, so to speak, would be created in the Singapore arena. And if there were no adequately organised political parties with sufficient mass support to eclipse the P.A.P. completely, the P.A.P. would still stand a chance of having some of their leaders again being elected to the Legislative Assembly. With luck, the P.A.P. might even win enough seats to form a coalition Government and so still remain in power. Of course, to achieve this, the trade unions, cultural organisations, rural associations, hawkers associations, etc., will have to be dominated by pro-P.A.P. elements. That is why all the prominent leaders in these organisations have been arrested. The P.A.P. hopes by temporarily paralysing these organisations to be able to create conditions through bribes, threats and intimidation for P.A.P. stooges to infiltrate into these organisations and so dominate them. Already the P.A.P. has a nucleus in the N.T.U.C. There are certain other unions already dominated by P.A.P. stooges. The P.A.P. hopes to extend the sphere of P.A.P. influence into the other unions and organisations. This move is important for the immediate future. But it is more important in the long-term view, as it is only by domination over these organisations that the P.A.P. can ever hope for a comeback in the political arena of Singapore. But, of course, these are only P.A.P. pipe-dreams. There is already trouble ahead. The Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E., namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, has already openly attacked the P.A.P. Government - a matter of a P.A.P. Parliamentary Secretary attacking the P.A.P. Government! So what is the future going to be? We can only say that all the pipe-dreams of the P.A.P. will remain pipe-dreams. They go up like soap bubbles, and burst. Of course, because of these arrests, certain other Parties are already thinking of filling in the vacuum. They talk of possible arrests in order to give the impression that they are the forces that represent the people. That is entirely erroneous and foolish. The force remains with the Barisan Sosialis. We still have the support of the workers and the civic organisations. And this support will enable the Barisan Sosialis to bury the P.A.P. when the time comes. Sir, I have now outlined the Machiavellian thinking of the P.A.P. This is the result of selfish thinking of the P.A.P. leaders. They are trying to look after the political fortunes of P.A.P. leaders - the vested interests of the political leaders. Today, we see frantic efforts to erect "standing monuments", according to the Prime Minister, in order to remind the people of the good work of the P.A.P. Government. And when the elections come along, they hope that these "standing monuments" will help to deceive the people and to win them their support. We must remember that, though the P.A.P. leaders might get away with not holding the Sembawang by-election, they will not be able to skip the general elections, that is, unless more funny things are cooking. The P.A.P. was elected for a five-year term. We have seen how desperately their Ministers cling to power on the slightest excuse. Their lust for power is so great that, if they could get away with it, they would most certainly do away with the coming general elections. But, alas, the gods are not with the Prime Minister. He cannot get away with it and there will have to be a general election at the latest in early 1964, and with every indication of it being held much earlier. We still know nothing though about how the 15 Central Parliament seats are to be filled. The Prime Minister particularly chose to be vague in order to keep us in the dark as to what is happening to our constitutional future. We can understand now why the P.A.P. leaders want to arrest political opponents in the Barisan Sosialis. Hence the arrest of all our able leaders, organisers and prospective candidates for the general elections. Anti-colonial stalwarts have long struck fear and panic into the entrails of P.A.P. leaders. It is well known that the desperate politicians would soon resort to desperate measures to keep themselves in office. There is, of course, a second reason why the P.A.P. want the arrests. We may call them by-products. Arrests and police action cause fear, instil fear into people, especially those who would fight shy of the police and ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we have no quorum. There are about six or seven of us here. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

I must ask both the Government side and the Opposition side to see that at least thirteen Members remain in the Chamber so that we can finish the debate as quickly as possible. Dr Lee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have given the first reason why the P.A.P. want to make the arrests. I now come to the second reason. Arrests and police action cause and instil fear into the people, especially those who would fight shy of the police and the courts at all costs. The Prime Minister remembers his success in the last days of the referendum campaign. When he realised that the vast majority of the people were going to cast blank votes, he unleashed the most unprecedented scare - propaganda campaign with threats and intimidation to the people about loss of citizenship. With the help of the radio, Rediffusion, the Press and police vans, he succeeded in coercing large sections of the people into voting for the White Paper merger proposals. Similarly this time, since he has failed to win the support of the people in spite of all his tricks, he now attempts to intimidate them into supporting him. The ruthlessness of the P.A.P. is well known. If a P.A.P. member comes to ask for contribution towards the erection of welcome arches on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit to a constituency, who can refuse and say no? Who would dare say no? If you were invited to subscribe to and attend a function in honour of the Prime Minister by a fearful P.A.P. branch official or by some Government official, would it not be, to say the least, indiscreet to refuse, even dangerous to refuse? Thus we see, Sir, staged photographs of people "welcoming" the Prime Minister and many "attending" the Prime Minister's functions. The P.A.P. tries to buy support. When that fails, the next weapon is intimidation, and with the arrests, the Prime Minister hopes to intimidate large sections of the people into supporting the P.A.P., especially after they have been given a dose of bedtime stories of Russian bears and the Twelve Arabian Nights. But let us all say here and now, it is a forlorn hope. Still a third reason for the arrests is the settling of old scores. It is well known that in spite of laughters, handshakes and beer-drinking in the C.P.A. room, P.A.P. leaders have not forgotten that their predicament today is largely due to those, now detained, withdrawing their support to the P.A.P. We see the settling of old scores in the punitive and vindictive treatment of detainees in Singapore today. I will enlarge on this when I speak on my amendment concerning the treatment of detainees. But this alone shows that the P.A.P. leaders also want the arrests because of vengeance against those now under detention. From all this, we see that the main reason for the arrests, so far as the P.A.P. is concerned, is the approach of the time for general elections, and the P.A.P. leaders want to safeguard the security of their personal vested interests. Many had known that the Prime Minister was only waiting for some excuse, some incident, in order to give a pretext for repressive action. The Brunei uprising and the increased international tension that followed gave him just the excuse and pretext he had been waiting for. Those now detained had talked frequently enough of the Prime Minister using agents provocateurs to create incidents, and consequently they had remained sharply vigilant and on guard against all provocations from the P.A.P. and its mercenary stooges. The mass arrests on 2nd February, 1963, were therefore not wholly unexpected. Those now in Outram Prison knew that the more desperate the P.A.P. got, the greater the likelihood of repression. As the P.A.P. was sinking further and further into the quagmire, all of us knew it was only a matter of time before the Prime Minister would remove the velvet glove and bare his iron claws. That has happened today. And to protect the vested interests of the P.A.P., action had been taken immediately and not left until after 31st August, 1963. Now, let me speak on the amendment concerning the treatment of detainees. Recently some press publicity has been given to the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees by the P.A.P. Government in Singapore. You might also have noticed a small item in the Straits Times on the 2nd of April, 1963, about families of detainees "squatting" in the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister himself has referred to the incident. From this small item of news one can understand that there must be something pretty serious before aged parents had been compelled to go and brave the fearful Prime Minister of the ruthless P.A.P. The dawn swoop of the Internal Security Council and the P.A.P.'s "Operation Cold Store" took place in the small hours of the morning of 2nd February, 1963. It is the 10th of April today, and they have been nearly ten weeks in "Cold Store" and in solitary confinement. 69 days in solitary confinement. I am not competent enough to speak about other countries, but so fat as Malaya is concerned, this is unprecedented in prison history, even including the worst periods of colonial oppression and for the worst of convicted criminals. I shall enlarge on this later. Since the arrests on 2nd February, repeated requests had been made by Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen to find out, first, where the arrested persons were detained and, second, when we could go to see them. Many of us telephoned the Special Branch a number of times, but always the same stock answer came back, "No, interrogation not completed." One of us, the Member for Thomson, telephoned the Director of Prisons, and he told us that we could go and see the inmates, the convicted prisoners, but we would not be allowed to go and see the political detainees unless permission was granted by the Special Branch.

3.58 p.m. I was a little surprised at this because I myself had spoken to the Director if Prisons only a few days before the arrests, when I met him at a consular reception, and he had indicated to me that there is nothing in the law to stop Legislative Assemblymen from seeing persons detained in the prison. This polite refusal from him was therefore a little unexpected. But, of course, I also realised that this refusal was not because of his own doings and it would be unfair to find fault with him. I mention this not to embarrass the Director of Prisons who, so far as we know, is a man of integrity, but to show how the P.A.P. itself always breaks the laws of the land, and yet accuses other people of doing so. It is a case, as I have already said, of a robber crying "thief". Since our repeated verbal and telephone requests were refused, we were forced to write to the Director of the Special Branch instead. Accordingly, I wrote to Mr Bogaars, Director of the Special Branch, on the 21st February, 1963. My letter reads as follows, and I intend to table it, Sir, for the record: `Mr Bogaars, D.S.B., Singapore. Sir, We Assemblymen have repeatedly asked to be allowed to see the detainees arrested recently. So far we have not been permitted to do so. It is now three weeks since detention. We want to see for ourselves how the detainees are being kept. Please let us know when we may be permitted to go and see them.' And I signed myself as Assemblyman for Queenstown and on behalf of 13 Assemblymen in the Barisan Sosialis. We waited for a reply, but no reply came, not even an acknowledgment. Meanwhile, further verbal requests to see the detainees were made by us. But the answer that came back was always the same, "Not possible now, but will let you know as soon as possible." We waited for one week. Finally we wrote our second letter on the 27th of February. It reads as follows. (This is another letter which I intend to table for the record): `To the D.S.B., Singapore. Sir, It is 3� weeks since the arbitrary arrests. Repeated attempts have been made by us in our capacity as Assemblymen to see our friends and comrades now detained. We had also written to you on 21-2-63 asking when we would be permitted to see the detainees. We have received no reply so far. Meanwhile we are gravely disturbed by the unduly harsh restrictions that have been imposed on the detainees, which apparently are meant to further punish both detainees and families alike. Although a few detainees in the Federation have already been allowed to read newspapers, no one in Singapore is as yet allowed the same "privilege". No hooks are allowed and only a half-hour period of relaxation permitted although convicted criminals are allowed to play basket-ball. [I understand the time is actually 20 minutes, not half an hour.] Tin biscuits and tin foods are barred. An] detainees are given no drinks the whole day. In cases where the detainees have no parents, wives or husbands, brothers or other next-of-kin are not allowed to see the detainees. In addition, in cases where husband and wife, or brother and sister are both detained, each is not permitted to see the other. Is it necessary to further inflict such cruel and inhuman treatment on the detainees? We learn also that some detainees have been informed verbally that they have been served with Detention Orders. How are they to object to these Detention Orders, as provided under the law, if they are not allowed to communicate with the legal advisers immediately? Only a few years ago, the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, himself, as a lawyer and Assemblyman, was able to see Lim Ching Siong only three days after detention. It is now 3� weeks since detention and no legal adviser or Assemblyman has yet been given permission to see the detainees. We demand to see the actual conditions of detention of the detainees. Some of them are in poor health. We demand to see for ourselves that there is no breakdown in their health as a result of maltreatment by the P.A.P. Government. We want to see the detainees immediately. Solitary confinement for political detainees is inhuman. May I draw your attention to the Report of the Prison Inquiry Commission. 1960, which unanimously recommends as follows:- "POLITICAL DETAINEES are, or indeed, should be regarded as an anomaly in a democratic society. While we shall not permit ourselves any judgment on the justice or necessity of detaining persons for political reasons, we might observe that disagreement with current political policies and ideas does not constitute an anti-social offence and does not call for measures of social rehabilitation. It follows that political prisoners, if and when there are any, should be kept away from institutions for convicted prisoners and be provided with all the facilities of ordinary living. Political Detainees should therefore enjoy conditions [of detention] as near normal as possible under confinement, and they should be free from penal restrictions and discipline. Political Detainees should, in our opinion, be eligible for as many visits from relatives and friends as are administratively feasible; they should have complete liberty to organise their lives under detention in any manner they choose and should be provided with adequate facilities for reading, writing, study, cooking and recreation.".' That is the end of the quote. Then my letter continues: `If there is no immediate improvement to conditions of detention, we shall further protest to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. Kindly let me know what arrangements may be made for Assemblymen and legal advisers to see the detainees immediately. Yours faithfully, Dr Lee Siew Choh on behalf of 13 other Assemblymen in Barisan Sosialis.' Still nothing happened. Just before I left for London on the 2nd of March, I received a short letter from the Special Branch informing us that they would let us see the detainees as soon as possible. But this "as soon as possible" became "as late as possible.' We paid visits to the Outram Prison for the first time on the 26th and the 28th of March. No thanks to the P.A.P. The Member for Anson had on Saturday, 23rd March, visited Outram Prison. His report appeared in the Straits Times on Monday, 25th March. Under the circumstances, the Special Branch, the prison authorities, and the P.A.P. had no longer any valid reason to stop us, and so on Monday arrangements were made with the prison authorities for us to visit the prison the next day. Before I go further, Sir, let us ask the P.A.P., why did the P.A.P. Government and the Special Branch prevent us from seeing the detainees in the prison when it is clearly stated in the law that all Assemblymen have the right to visit prisons at any time? The Prison Ordinance, section 68, reads as follows:- `68 (1) . Every Judge Magistrate or Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction in the place where any prison is situate may, whenever he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of such prison, and of the prisoners therein, and he may question any prisoner or officer, and he may enter any observation he thinks fit to make in reference to the condition of the prison in a visitors' book to be kept for that purpose by the Superintendent, which book shall be duly produced to the visiting Justices at their next ensuing visit.' And the second relevant part is (2) : `(2) Any member of the Council of Ministers or of the Legislative Assembly may at any time visit any prison in the Colony and may exercise all or any of the powers specified in sub-section (1).', which I have just read. We want to ask the P.A.P. Government, why did the P.A.P. Government knowingly contravene the law? Why did the Special Branch prevent elected representatives of the people from seeing the inmates of prisons? Why have they denied elected representatives of the people their rightful and legal powers? Whatever excuse the P.A.P. may give there is no denying that the P.A.P. had broken the law, and knowingly broken the law. Would the Ministers care to punish themselves for it? Would the State Advocate-General care to take action against the P.A.P. culprits? Of course, Sir, this is not the first time the P.A.P. has broken the law, but let us continue the story. Even before we went to see our friends and comrades in Outram Prison, we had learnt of the inhuman treatment they were receiving at the hands of the P.A.P. Government. Wives and families were permitted to see their loved ones but once a week, and that only for 20 minutes. No food or material was allowed to be sent to the prison. All detainees were kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours and 40 minutes in the 24-hour day. They were allowed to come out of their cells for 20 minutes a day for bath and exercise. That was all. But I will enlarge on this a little later, Sir. What surprised us greatly was that detainees were even denied access to counsel until more than one month after arrest. Whatever arithmetic or addition of the Minister for Home Affairs, the P.A.P. cannot deny that counsel were only permitted to see the detainees more than one month after arrest. The exact dates can be ascertained, and assuming that a person can be served a detention order within 16 days of arrest, and a further two weeks allowed for grounds of detention, it only adds up to 30 days, but counsel were allowed to see the detainees, this time in Outram Prison, only five weeks, six weeks, seven weeks, after arrest. Every detainee or prisoner, as far as we know, has the right to be represented by counsel. Why then were detainees denied this right until more than one month after arrest? Why did the Government, again knowingly, violate the basic rights of detainees? The Minister for Home Affairs tried to be equivocal in his answer. He is obviously trying to hide something. Some of our friends were sent up to the Federation and confined in different centres, in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Penang and Johore Bahru. We learnt that some were treated not so badly, but it would be ridiculous to say that treatment was good in any way. We know the treatment of detainees in the Federation has improved considerably, and is many times better than the treatment of detainees in Singapore today. But lest we forget, let me put on record the inhuman treatment given to our friend and comrade, Fong Swee Suan, Central Executive Committee member of the Barisan Sosialis, and Secretary-General of the Singapore Association of Trade Unions, during the first few weeks of his detention in Kuala Lumpur. We do not just follow a line, as alleged by the P.A.P., to depict the Special Branch as inhuman. No, Sir. We merely call a spade a spade. Mrs Fong went to see her husband, who is of frail physique and in poor health, and she was shocked at the appalling treatment he suffered at the hands of the Special Branch in Kuala Lumpur. These are some of her complaints: (1) He was in solitary confinement. The cell was lit by a very powerful electric bulb 24 hours a day. He could not have a chance, therefore, to sleep in darkness. (2) There was ringing of a bell at frequent intervals to jar his nerves, and to prevent him from sleeping or even relaxing. (3) He had no bed and he had to sleep on a cement bench. (4) He was handcuffed like a convicted criminal every time he was brought outside the cell. (5) He was allowed only five minutes for his meals. I have no wish to go into more details. But such was the treatment Mr Fong Swee Suan received at the hands of the Special Branch. We learnt that the treatment improved after protests were made to the Federation Government by Mrs Fong. For some time now detainees in the Federation have been allowed newspapers and other reading materials and may now have a chance to lead a collective and social life though still under detention. But what of the detainees in Singapore? How are they being treated after 10 weeks of detention? Incredible as it may sound, after 10 weeks, 69 days to be exact, of arrest and detention, our friends are still being treated worse than convicted criminals. Sir, we visited them, as I have related on 26th and 28th March, and we have written a report on what we found in our visit. I wish to table it for the record, and I might as well read it out here to make sure that all of us know what the report is. This report was written on the 29th March, 1963, immediately after our visit and I wrote: `Report of visit to Outram Prison 1. Together with 3 other Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen I visited the Outram Prison on Tuesday 25.3.63 and on Thursday 28.3.

63. We were shown courteously round the prison and we saw altogether 98 political detainees in their individual cells. 86 were in the male A Block, 9 in a separate female block, and 3 in the prison hospital. 2. This is the first time Barisan Sosialis Assembly have been permitted to visit the political detainees despite repeated verbal and written requests to the Government since the arrest on the 2nd February, 1963. We were all shocked by what we saw. The conditions of detention are in direct contrast to the recommendations of the P.A.P.-chaired 1960 Report of Prison Inquiry Commission. 3. We were particularly shocked at the prolonged solitary confinement of political detainees. This appears to be a deliberate punishment of political opponents of the P.A.P. Since arrest, all detainees have been put in solitary confinement. They are all locked in tiny cells. They were permitted to come out to wash themselves for only 20 minutes in 24 hours. This 20-minute period for bath and exercise has, since about one week ago, been extended to 45 minutes. And thus today the political detainees are still kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours and 15 minutes in a 24-hour day. 4. Detainees are not permitted newspapers or any form of reading material. It is only very lately that some childish reading material is given to some detainees, and ironically, English books are given to those who read only Chinese. At one time even dictionaries, Malay, Medical and other textbooks were not permitted. 5. The heat is oppressive especially in the afternoon. There is no through ventilation and the atmosphere inside the cells is stuffy. 6. Already solitary confinement in the tropical heat has given rise to unhealthy appearances on many of the detainees. Many look definitely ill. Some have sallow appearances. Others are pale. Some look swollen and "bloaty" in the face. Then there is one who talks a little irrationally. He advised us to be careful of our wallets being picked inside the prison! It is our view that he is on the verge of a mental breakdown. Then again many complain of weakness of legs because of prolonged solitary confinement. There are some who complained of backache as a result of having to sit for hours on non-mattress spring beds. 7. There is the case of one (already suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and referred to by Mr Marshall) who complained on Saturday. 23rd March, 1963, of a boil in the back and had asked to be sent to the Prison Hospital on the morning of Monday. 25th March. 1963. This was refused but the authorities changed their minds and sent him to the Prison Hospital in the same afternoon. When we saw him on Thursday, 28th March. 1963, he had an ulcer on his back between the shoulder blades, measuring �" X 1�", with ragged angry edges, inflamed surroundings and pus and gangrenous slough in the centre. This ulcer could easily have been due to improper care following trauma inside the cell, lack of exercise and undernourishment. 8. Contrary to what Marshall has said, the food is far from satisfactory. The fish sometimes is stale, and no fruit is provided. The salt fish is hardly edible. Families can send in fresh fruit and tin food now. But even eggs were not permitted three weeks ago. 9. A major complaint is that many have to defecate and micturate into chamber pots inside the cells. There is no means for proper washing of the hands, to say nothing of proper ablutions for Muslim detainees. Any washing would mean wetting of the cell. Detainees are not permitted out of the cell to wash and clean themselves after defecation; nor to empty the chamber pots, which if uncovered sometime after, would emit faecal odours that foul and "poison" the atmosphere in the poorly ventilated cells. 10. This has resulted in some detainees not willing to wash their hands and mouths the whole day, as such washing must be done into the same chamber pots and uncovering these chamber pots would mean fouling the whole cell. For the same reason some detainees have been deterred from cleaning the mouth and brushing the teeth before breakfast. 11. Detainees are now permitted pen and paper to write letters once a week. But no table or chair is provided for such writing excepting the female detainees. We saw one male detainee kneeling on the floor and writing a letter in that kneeling position. 12. Many complained that close relation and near and dear friends have not been permitted to see them. Brothers and sisters who are both detained in the same prison are similarly debarred from seeing each other. 13. Many have been interrogated a number of times. Some were interrogated once soon after arrest, but that was all. There are two who have not even been interrogated at all. 14. During our visit, certain requests were made by detainees, for example, hand fans; chairs and tables for writing letters; two baths every day instead of one, better reading material, better food and daily newspapers. (The Prison Commissioner, Major James, said he had instructions not to give newspapers to detainees). But no request is more urgent than that they must have more time for exercise; more time for breathing the fresh air and seeing the sun outside the cramped cells; time and opportunity for meeting fellow detainees. 15. It does look as if the P.A.P. Government locks political detainees in solitary confinement purely for the sake of punishment and vengeance on political opponents. Their excuse that this is the period of interrogation is balderdash and sheer nonsense. Many have been interrogated, once soon after arrests and they have been in solitary confinement ever since. A few have not been even interrogated at all! How long is the period of interrogation? If interrogation should take months and months, does it mean that solitary confinement will go on for months and months? How silly and ridiculous can the P.A.P. argument become? 16. There is no doubt that this sort of solitary confinement is savage, barbaric and inhuman. Political detainees are not convicted criminals and must not be treated as such. Even convicted criminals are not given such cruel treatment. 17. Solitary confinement of convicted criminals is only given as punishment for breaking of certain rules and regulations whilst in prison. Such solitary confinement is given only for a period of 1 day (for the lighter offences) to a maximum of 30 days (for the heavier offences). And at least one full hour is permitted for exercise and fresh air outside the cell. 18.Today political detainees, who are not convicted criminals, have been put in solitary confinement for 8 weeks, i.e., double the maximum period of 30 days given as punishment for the worst offences of convicted criminals! In addition, for more than 6 weeks the detainees had only 20 minutes in 24 hours outside the cells. Only recently has the period been increased to 45 minutes. This is still short of the minimum of one full hour in 24 that is permitted convicted criminals. 19. Today even P.A.P. backers and supporters are shocked at the cruel tortures of political detainees. The P.A.P. Government stands condemned in the eyes of the world. We must warn the P.A.P. Government. If the health of the detainees, whether mental or physical, should break down as a result of such inhuman solitary confinement, the P.A.P. will have to stand full responsibility for all the consequences. We appeal to the people of Singapore and other countries to take serious note of and condemn these inhuman atrocities committed by the P.A.P. Government.'

On a point of order. There is no quorum, Sir.

Is the Member insisting? Is it necessary at this time of the day to call for a quorum?

Yes.

The Member insists. It is a waste of time. Anyway, ring the Division bells. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Dr Lee.

Since, Sir, our first visit, more of our Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen have also visited our friends in Outram Prison, and more detainees have been seen by their counsel, both in prison and in the Central Police Station lock-ups. All available information shows how callous, brutal and cruel the P.A.P. and the Special Branch have been in their treatment of those now under detention in Singapore. I have now mentioned here but a few instances of P.A.P. inhuman treatment of detainees. The callousness and unreasonableness of the P.A.P. and the Special Branch can be seen from their attitude to the reasonable and legitimate requests of detainees. Take, for instance, the case of the three Nanyang graduates who asked to be allowed to attend the Convocation on the 30th March, 1963, at Nanyang University to receive their diplomas on this big day. They were ready to go under escort and abide by any condition the Special Branch might impose. This request of theirs was made by their counsel to both the Director of the Special Branch and to the Minister. But did the Minister and the Special Branch accede to their reasonable and understandable requests? No, Sir. All the requests were refused. It looks as if the Special Branch is completely insensitive to all persuasion. The three graduates - their names are Ong Sujo Kook, Tan Kok Fang, Chua Siew Chuan - had to be punished with solitary confinement instead. The case of Peh Tian Guan shows the cruelties and tortures the P.A.P. and Special Branch inflict on detainees. Peh Tian Guan was interrogated by the Special Branch on 5th March, and because he did not give answers that pleased the interrogator, he was squeezed on the mouth by the Special Branch interrogator. Then when he refused to admit to things which he knew nothing about, he was ordered by the Special Branch interrogator to stand up, put his hands on top of his head, and squat down and get up 160 times, himself counting the number of squats at the same time. The next day Peh Tian Guan could hardly walk as a result of this unjust punishment. This was reported to the Prison authorities who saw the poor man in his terrible condition. He was not able to walk properly to his bath. He could not even squat down at the toilet, as he had not had exercise for the past one month. But what has the Government done about this? On the 16th of March, counsel for Mr Peh wrote to the Commissioner of Police, complaining to him of ill-treatment and manhandling of detainees. Counsel also complained, at the same time, of another Nanyang student having been slapped in the face, apparently by the same interrogator. But what has the Commissioner of Police done about this complaint?

Nothing was done. There was no truth in the allegation.

The Minister for Home Affairs says, doing nothing. Is that the way the P.A.P. Government treats detainees? Counsel suggested an identification parade as Mr Peh can recognise the Special Branch interrogator who so ill-treated him. There is, however, no response from the Commissioner of Police. I hear that Peh Tian Guan has been threatened with the punishment of death if he should pursue the matter further. What sort of a Commissioner of Police do we have? Is the Commissioner of Police going to shelter this culprit? And is the P.A.P. also going to shelter this culprit? I would like to hear some words from the Minister. Sir, the police are meant to protect the people, not to: knock them about, still less to threaten them with death. A man died mysteriously in the C.I.D. lock-up only two years ago, Sir, as a result of manhandling by some so-called "unknown persons". Is the PAP, going to connive at such ill-treatment of detainees until there is another mysterious death? Why does the P.A.P. not immediately punish the culprit and give the House an assurance that there will be no such repetition of ill-treatment and manhandling of detainees? Instead, Sir, I see the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries think that it is a good thing for detainees to be ill-treated in this manner. But, anyway they will have to answer for all this. There is another matter which I want to touch on before I come to solitary confinement of detainees. The Government must not forget that many of the arrested persons were the sole breadwinners in their families. What does the Government intend to do about assistance to these families that need assistance? I saw one detainee in the prison hospital (he who has pulmonary tuberculosis and a large ulcer on his back) crying. He was extremely worried about his family and aged dependants, as he was the sole breadwinner. I asked the Special Branch officer who accompanied us throughout our visit to the Prison as to what the Government was doing about financial aid to needy families. He said the families must apply to the Social Welfare for assistance. Let us ask: is it not the duty, the responsibility of Government to see to the welfare of families whose sole breadwinners the P.A.P. Government has arrested and detained? While I am at this, Sir, let me bring out another instance of the injustice of the P.A.P. Government. Mr Chang Chan Chuan, a teacher of the Nan Chiau Girls High School, who has an old mother and four younger brothers and sisters dependent entirely on him, was paid only four days' salary for the month of February. Why? Even temporary staff are paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. Why should Government be so harsh on Mr Chang? If it was the practice for Government to pay detainees who had employment before, e.g. Cyprus, surely the P.A.P. could do the same? Why has the P.A.P. to go out of its way to be harsh and cruel to detainees? All the hardships suffered by families of detainees are due to the P.A.P.'s repressive action. The Government is therefore responsible and should not shirk its responsibility. Some proper scale of allowance to the detainees' family is urgent. Will the Government give immediate attention to the matter? Then there are those who are detained in the Federation. Every time visits are made to the Federation, it eats into the savings of families who can ill afford the expenses incurred in travels away from home. In this instance again, it is the Government's duty and responsibility to see that free transport and free accommodation be provided for the families. Detainees should not have been sent out of Singapore in the first place. Let me now touch on the health of political detainees. Imprisoned in stuffy cells and oppressive heat, with no sunlight and fresh air, inadequate exercise and poor food, it is not unexpected that we saw so many who looked ill when we visited the prison two weeks ago. For example, Tay Kee Chuan and Kee Swee Ban. It is my firm belief, Sir, that but for their original good health and high morale that cannot be crushed by threats and intimidations and ill-treatment, the punitive and vindictive treatment would have caused grave illness amongst many of the detainees. Many of the detainees look "bloaty" in their faces. For example, Teo Siang Oon, Chen Ee Fong. Many complain of weakness in their legs. Many had sallow appearances. For example, Wang Yuen Peow, Chua Siew Chuan. Some who have been confined in the Central Police Station lock-ups have lost considerable weight. For example, Poh Choon Seng has lost 10 lbs, since his arrest, and Chok Koh Thong, our Central Executive Committee member, and one who was mentioned by the Prime Minister a little while ago, has lost 19 lbs. This loss of weight is a result of the detention, and their solitary confinement and cruel treatment. Let me just comment slightly on Mr Ghouse. He was seen by his counsel on the 2nd of April and he complained of chronic constipation since arrest, which, was not relieved by Agarol, a laxative, which was given to him. He complained Of pain in the ears and stomach, and he reported that he vomited at about 9 p.m. on 3rd April, 1963. He appeared nervous and was sweating profusely, wetting in no time two handkerchiefs given to him by his counsel. Such, Sir, are but a few examples of how solitary confinement has affected the detainees. Today detainees at Outram Prison are still kept in solitary confinement in cells 5 feet by 11 feet with tiny barred windows near the ceiling. They are still permitted only to come Out of their cells for only 45 minutes in 24 hours, and during these 45 minutes they must bathe, wash, defecate and exercise. This is the only time when they can breathe the fresh air outside the stuffy cells and enjoy the sunshine. All in 45 minutes! If they do not feel the urge for bowel action at this time, they will have to defecate in the cells! And until about three weeks ago, the period allowed for bath and fresh air, as I have already mentioned, was only 20 minutes! Newspapers are still not permitted and, until recently, even books and tin foods were not allowed. Sir, we can imagine how the detainees feel, all alone - 23 hours and 15 minutes out of 24 hours a day inside a tiny cell, with no one to talk to, no newspapers to read, not knowing what is happening outside the cell, seeing no one except uniformed prison guards, all the time in the stuffy, suffocating atmosphere and oppressive heat, gazing at the walls around them, and looking into space but seeing nothing! Can the P.A.P. Ministers imagine what it means for a man to be in solitary confinement daily, having only a single non-mattressed spring-bed and the thick drab walls as company? Would the P.A.P. Ministers like to have a taste of what they have given the detainees? Would the Ministers like to change places with the detainees just for one day? Sir, a man is a social animal. He is horn to live amongst men. He is brought up in a social environment. He lives, works and plays amongst fellow human beings. Until death, he is all the time associated with his fellow human beings. Excepting for hermits and recluses, man cannot live alone. He can exist alone, but he needs the company of fellow human beings in order to live. Without social company, a man's faculties do not develop and function. He rapidly degenerates and atrophies. Ultimately he becomes the shell of a man. Let me, Sir, refer you to the Prison Ordinance, section 58 (1), and see what the law says about solitary confinement; it talks of the punishment by the Superintendent of minor prison offences. Section 58 (1) reads: `The Superintendent may punish any prisoner found after due inquiry to be guilty of a minor prison offence as hereinafter specified by ordering him to undergo one or more of the following punishments:' And (a) says: `Confinement in a punishment cell for a term not exceeding seven days on a diet of bread and water or rice and water;' You will see, Sir, this is a punishment inflicted by the Superintendent for people who are convicted prisoners and it says, "not exceeding seven days". Then, may I refer you, Sir, to section 59 (1) , which talks of the punishment by the Superintendent of aggravated prison offences. These are for heavier offences of convicted prisoners while in prison. It reads: `The Superintendent may punish any prisoner found after due inquiry to be guilty of an aggravated prison offence as hereinafter specified by ordering him to undergo one or more of the following punishments:' And I just refer you to (b), which states: `Confinement in a punishment cell for a term not exceeding seven days on a diet of bread and water or rice and water.' Sir, these are punishments inflicted by the Superintendent on convicted prisoners and it says nothing of any punishment of solitary confinement that exceeds seven days. Let me now, Sir, refer you to section 62 (1) , and section 62 talks of punishment by Visiting Justices. This refers to more aggravated offences committed by convicted prisoners, and it reads: `62 (1) Where a prisoner is accused of any aggravated prison offence and the Superintendent is of opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the power of punishment which he possesses is inadequate, he shall forthwith report the matter in writing to the Visiting Justice or Justices.' And (2) reads: `The Visiting Justice or Justices shall, upon receipt of such report, attend at the prison without undue delay and investigate the charge, and may punish any prisoner whom after due inquiry upon oath he or they may find guilty of such offence with one or more of the following punishments:-' And (a) reads: `Confinement in a punishment cell for a term not exceeding 30 days upon such prescribed diet as he or they may think fit.' I want to impress upon you, Sir, that these punishments are only for convicted prisoners, and the maximum that could be inflicted is seven days by the Superintendent and 30 days after due investigation by Visiting Justices. Today our friends and comrades are not convicted prisoners, but they have been put in solitary confinement for 70 days. Let me refer you, Sir, to the penal law of India, 6th edition of 1955, and it tells how solitary confinement will affect a man. This is a law book. I refer, Sir, to section 73 of the Indian Penal Code which is on page 227. Section 73 under a heading called "Analogous Law" reads: `Under English law, solitary confinement, though at one time legal, was rarely awarded and was finally abolished by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893.' This section prescribes the limit within which solitary confinement may be awarded. It repeats an old English rule, now obsolete as a form of torture which fails in its effect on the public.' And this is a very important sentence, Sir: `When unduly prolonged it leads to mental derangement.' And following this, under the next paragraph "Principle" it says: `Solitary confinement is isolation of the prisoner from human intercourse and society. It causes a feeling of oppression due to the gregarious instincts of man. Prolonged isolation from human communion becomes intolerable and often leads to mental derangement.' And then it reads: `The sentence has been, therefore, reserved for hardened criminals and as a punishment for atrocity or brutality. It should not be ordered unless there appear in the evidence some special features such as extreme violence or brutality in the commission of the offence.' Of course, it talks of the convicted prisoner committing some brutal offence whilst in prison. There is only one more quotation here, Sir, and it is in section 74. It reads: `In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed 14 days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.' And under the same heading "Analogous Law", it says: `This section has been enacted on medical grounds. Continuous solitary confinement is conducive to physical deterioration and mental derangement.' Sir, you can see even the law book tells us that solitary confinement has serious effects on the health of a person, and because of that, solitary confinement is only given to the worst and most hardened of convicted prisoners and does not exceed 14 days. But our friends now in Outram Prison have been confined in solitary confinement for 69 days. Is that what the P.A.P. Ministers want? Are they so vindictive and punitive in their punishment of political opponents that they only allow them to exist but not to live - and may not even exist? Solitary confinement is a terrible punishment and it is normally, as I have already indicated, given as punishment to convicted prisoners who have further committed grave offences while in prison. I understand. Sir, even the High Court Judge does not normally sentence or convict an offender to solitary confinement. But today the P.A.P. punishes innocent persons arbitrarily arrested and detained with solitary confinement. This indeed, shows the Fascist and sadistic nature of the P.A.P. Ministers! This cruel and vindictive inhuman treatment given to detainees in Singapore breaks all records. There was nothing like this in the worst of the worst colonial days. It does look as if the Prime Minister has aped his colonial master so well that in the art of cruelty and tortures he is now master of his master. I went to the United Kingdom recently and there I visited some organisations that concern themselves with the treatment of prisoners of conscience, i.e. political prisoners. One of them is the organisation Amnesty, whose aims include seeking the release of those imprisoned for their opinions and seeking for them fair and public trial. I visited the Amnesty on 11th March. 1963, and explained to its officials what is happening in Singapore. They were very sympathetic and helpful. I understand that Amnesty has written to the Prime Minister a letter asking him to answer a few questions. But so far as I know the Prime Minister has not even bothered to reply to this letter from Amnesty. I have brought back with me a leaflet of the Amnesty International, the code of conduct towards prisoners of conscience. I table it for the information of hon. Members. It is a Minimum Code of conduct towards political prisoners and has been approved by a committee of lawyers from the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. We can see straightaway that what the P.A.P. Government is doing today is in direct conflict with the Minimum Code of conduct to political prisoners, as recognised by Western countries. Let us skip through just a few of the articles in this Minimum Code and see what they say. Article 5 reads: `The authority arresting a prisoner of conscience shall immediately notify his next-of-kin or his legal representative of his arrest and of the place where he is kept in custody.' The P.A.P. and the Special Branch took six days to notify the next-of-kin and, in fact, did everything they could to deny information to the next-of-kin. Article 6 reads: `(a) Upon arrest a prisoner of conscience shall have the right to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choice. (b) He shall be informed of this right and provided with facilities to communicate with his lawyer.' But we know, Sir, that our detainees today have been denied access to legal counsel until more than one month after arrest. Neither were they informed of this right and provided with facilities to communicate with their lawyers. Article 9 (a) reads: `A prisoner of conscience shall not be induced to give information by violence or threats or any unfair means.' But, as I have related, the detainees have already been threatened with death. Article 10 reads: `A prisoner of conscience shall not be required to stand except when his cell is inspected or during the first five minutes of any interrogation.' But, as in the case of Peh Tian Guan, the detainees have been ordered to stand and squat 160 times as punishment. Article 11(a) reads: `A prisoner of conscience on remand shall not suffer any unnecessary restrictions or deprivations. In particular he shall be permitted to receive visits, letters, parcels of food clothing, reading and writing material.' We know how our friends in Outram Prison were denied all these things until only very recently. Article 12 (a) reads: `A prisoner of conscience shall not be required to work during remand, nor shall he be required to eat or drink anything contrary to his wishes except on the advice of a medical practitioner.' We know one detainee in the Central Police Station lock-up, whose name is Foo Chee Zee, who has been asked to scrub the lavatory attached to his cell. We are glad to learn that he has refused to dot this and has stood up for his rights. We also understand that other detainees now in Outram Prison have been asked to sweep the floor! Article 13 (a) reads: `A prisoner of conscience shall be brought to trial as soon as possible. If he is not brought to trial within six months, he shall be deemed to be acquitted and shall be free from further arrests, custody, imprisonment, trial or other sanction on the ground on which he was originally arrested.' We all know what has happened. There are persons who have been detained for nearly seven years without charge or trial. Does the Government intend to give all the arrested persons a fair trial in an impartial court? And then Article 25 (a) reads: `A prisoner of conscience shall not be subjected to: (i) physical violence: (ii) forced labour; (iii) cruel or inhuman punishment: or. (iv) a collective punishment.' We all know what sort of punishment the detainees are getting. They have been subjected to physical violence, forced labour, and cruel and inhuman treatment. I quote one more Article. Article 32 reads: `During the period of his detention the state shall be obliged to pay an allowance in cash to any dependant of a prisoner of conscience unable to support himself.' But the Government has done nothing in this direction. Today the P.A.P.'s inhuman treatment of political detainees has been condemned by friend and foe alike, by those who oppose the P.A.P. as well as those who actively back and support the P.A.P. Even the good friend of the P.A.P. Ministers, Mr John Strachey. Labour M.P., has openly condemned the inhuman treatment. He asked why the detainees could not be sent to St. John's Island as in the past. I do not have to refer again to Paper Cmd. 17 of 1962, the 1960 Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Prisons. The Report recommends that "all political detainees should enjoy as near normal conditions of detention as possible." The P.A.P. Ministers had accepted and implemented certain recommendations in the Report, like the change of name from the "Commissioner of Prisons" to the "Director of Prisons". But for reasons best known to themselves, they do not implement the recommendations concerning the conditions of detention of political detainees. The excuse given by the P.A.P. for the solitary confinement of detainees is that it is necessary during the period of interrogation. Yet, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, so far only one-third of the detainees have been interrogated. Only statements have been taken from all. This is a shocking revelation, Sir. More than two months have passed and the Minister says that only one-third of the detainees have so far been interrogated. When will interrogation be over? At this rate of progress interrogation will not be completed until another four or five months. And judging from the past practice, the interrogation will not be completed until after months and years. Does the P.A.P. intend tot lock up political detainees in solitary confinement and with no access tot newspapers for six or seven months or even years? With all their self-professed brilliance and ingenuity, the P.A.P. Government today cannot invent a better excuse for these cruelties and tortures. The health of the detainees is the responsibility of the P.A.P. Government. Already there are some who talk a little irrationally as mentioned in my report. Does the Government really intend that these people be detained until they become mentally unbalanced? Sir, according to Price's Textbook of Medicine, illnesses could be produced during solitary confinement, and they can be grouped into three categories: (1) mental disorders, (2) psychosomatic illnesses, and (3) somatic illness. The mental illnesses that can be produced as a result of solitary confinement are: (1) Affective disorders like (a) excitement, (b) depression, (c) anxiety; (2) Schizophrenia; (3) Paranoia; (4) Hysteria. Those who have a familial pre-disposition to these illnesses are more susceptible to these diseases than others. Let me finally quote from this medical book, Clinical Psychiatry, by Dr Mayer-Gross, Slater and Roth of Cassell & Company, Limited, London 1960. On page 169, whilst discussing the psychopathic personality of neurotic reactions, in the paragraph under the heading of "Precipitation", there is this very small paragraph, paragraph 5: `The isolation in prison and especially in solitary confinement is a most fertile soil for paranoid reactions. Birnhaum (1908) has made a study of such cases. Some prisoners developed fantastic delusions of being pardoned or acquitted and indemnified, which disappeared when they were allowed to mix with others or when the sentence had been concluded. Paranoid reactions in prisoners of war, isolated by language from their environment, have also been observed.' Sir, I have learnt that even the Government Prisons Doctor, Dr Leong Hon Koon, has complained of the solitary confinement. I understand he has already seen the Minister for Home Affairs and has told him that as a doctor he would not be responsible for the health of the detainees if they should be further detained in solitary confinement. I would only ask the P.A.P. Ministers since none of them are here, it could he conveyed to them - to remember the fate that overtook all the Fascist dictators of the past. The verdict of the people is a terrible thing and it is especially terrible to those who go out of their way to inflict inhuman tortures on the people. Let me now, Sir, conclude and finish with what I have taken considerable time to inform the House of. There are still one or two points mentioned in the I.S.C. statement which I have not as yet dealt with adequately. For example, there is still this irresponsible talk of the sham referendum having indicated the wishes of the decisive majority of the people in Singapore. It has indicated nothing of that sort, of course. But suffice it to say now that the referendum on the 1st September, 1962, never at any time reflected the true will and desire of the people of Singapore. The I.S.C. statement has sought to justify the repressive actions of the three Governments taken against our anti-colonial and anti-imperialist stalwarts. But I have now exposed the shallowness and falsity of all these so-called "justification". There is no justification whatsoever for the arrests. All the excuses put forward by the colonialists to white-wash their cruel and repressive action do not hold water. Let me summarise:-

The original Question was as moved by the Prime Minister, appearing as item 4* (*See col. 375.) of the Order Paper, to which an amendment+ (+See col. 399.) has been moved by the Member for Queenstown. To leave out from "House" in line 1 of `the Prime Minister's motion to the end, and there to insert the words as they appear in the gestetnered paper which has been circulated. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." I take it that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has said all that has to be said by the Barisan Sosialis after six hours --- am I right? Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah) rose ---

There may be a couple of points more, Sir.

I must warn Barisan Sosialis Members that I will be very, very strict. If there is any repetition, I will stop the Member. Madam Hoe.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rising to ask whether this is the right time for us to have a tea-break, or are we to continue the debate? In my opinion, I would suggest that we have a tea-break before we continue with the debate.

I do not intend to suspend. I intend trying to get home as soon as possible. [Pause.] No Member wishing to speak? I will now put the Question to the vote. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 23; Absent, 12; Abstention, Nil.

The amendment is therefore lost. We are back to the original Motion by the Prime Minister. The Question is, "That this House supports the decision of the Internal Security Council made by representatives of the three Governments - the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - on the 1st February, 1963, ordering that certain persons known to the security authorities of the three Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist United Front conspiracy to jeopardise national defence and security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia, should be arrested immediately and not left till after 31st August. 1963, and that it endorses the statement made by the Internal Security Council as contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1963." The debate must be confined to the original question and nothing further can be said on the amendment.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House supports the decision of the Internal Security Council made by representatives of the three Governments - the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - on the 1st February, 1963, ordering that certain persons known to the security authorities of the three Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist United Front conspiracy to jeopardise national defence and security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia. should be arrested immediately and not left till after 31st August, 1963, and that it endorses the statement made by the Internal Security Council as contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1963.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock a.m. to Friday, 7th June, 1963.