Suspension of Sitting

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the meeting be suspended until 2.30 p.m." (The Chief Minister).

Question put, and agreed to.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have to say may, in view of the drama of this morning's debate, sound rather pedestrian, something in the nature of an intermezzo, but in view of the importance of trade in this Colony, I hope, Sir, that you will regard it as relevant. This is surely the time when anything that can be said publicly to promote confidence and faith in the future of this country and of this Government should be said.

Reports of flight of capital have been circulating in Singapore. Some of them indicate that the exodus has been on a colossal scale. A figure of 150 million dollars has been mentioned, 17� million pound sterling. Sir, I speak with some authority when I say from my knowledge as a banker that these reports are utter nonsense. The remittance of such a vast sum could only be made in two ways. It could be made through the Commissioners of Currency by the remitters drawing the money from the banks and paying it to the Board of Commissioners of Currency, thus causing an acute shortage of the circulating medium and, indeed, creating a minor crisis; or it could actually be remitted through the banks. But if it were remitted through the banks, it would create such a demand for sterling that we should know all about it. Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been no such disturbing factors.

I do not say that no capital has left this country. After all, there are some people who have regarded the recent victory of the Labour Front as a major cataclysm. Such people have indeed attempted to sell their excellent securities and try to get the money safely out of the country. What folly! However, such flight of capital could take place, particularly by withdrawals by overseas investors if they thought that the sinister and evil forces which exist in strength in this Colony, whose symbol is the clenched fist, and who have thus far so successfully poisoned the minds, the exceedingly susceptible minds of Chinese adolescents, were to gain the ascendant. This, of course, is the root of the matter, as has already been said this morning.

With half of our population under 21, what a fruitful field for the sowing of dragon's teeth. Would it not be possible for Government to investigate the case of the "old" students one hears so much about? Could not one place an age limit at which students must withdraw from schools?

To be more mundane, Sir, but equally realistic, such a flight of capital as was rumoured to have taken place would take place if the public feared that restrictions might be placed on movements of resident sterling. I mean that if restrictions were placed on the free remittance of funds from this country to other points in the sterling area. The public would, I think, respond well to an assurance by Government that no such legislation - and it would take legislation, of course, to impose such restrictions - is contemplated, or likely to be contemplated.

At this moment the Governments of India and the United States are reported to be considering an agreement designed to encourage private American investments in India. The agreement would provide for guarantees against expropriation and for the remittance of profits in convertible currency. And how necessary these provisions are.

Businessmen and investors are not altruists but in business to make profit. Here in Singapore a great deal of nonsense is talked about profits and dividends. It is true that on the existing paid-up capital of companies sometimes three-figure dividends are paid, but it takes no account whatsoever of the enormous reserves belonging to the shareholders which are in these companies, and which are employed in the business. By the simple process of tidying up the balance sheet and transferring these reserves in the shape of bonus shares to the shareholders, the same amount of money would be available for distribution and dividends would become more normal. There is, I submit, Sir, nothing ignoble about trading for legitimate profit, and I state solemnly that capital will not flow to any country where controls and regulations are introduced to reduce the profit below what is expected in other parts of the world.

Finally, Sir, I would say that if the use of the Emergency Regulations is one of the means whereby confidence can be restored to this country, then let them be used resolutely.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, the events of the past week have caused grave concern to the citizens of Singapore, and I do not propose retracing any of the ground which has been covered by the other Members this morning. My Party was concerned with the dispute between the Singapore Bus Workers' Union and the management of Hock Lee Bus Company. We disapprove of the way in which the company was using the Hock Lee Employees' Union, a union which the company had organised to break the unity of the workers in the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. This action of the company we deplore as it endangered the whole trade union movement in Singapore. The sympathy my Party showed in this dispute was the same sort of sympathy which all responsible trade unions showed towards the Singapore Bus Workers' Union in this dispute. We were all not going to stand aside and to be idle, while a responsible union was in danger of being gulped by the irresponsible behaviour of the management of the Hock Lee Bus Company.

My Party, Sir, accepts responsibility throughout this dispute. When feelings were high and when the situation worsened, my Party clearly stood opposed to violence, for resort to violence would not be in the interest of the workers themselves.

In the motion before the Assembly this morning the Government is seeking power to impose a curfew to deal with a situation which the citizens of Singapore witnessed a few days ago. As such my Party is opposed to the principle of governing by way of Emergency Regulations. As this motion is to be a motion of confidence in the Government, my Party will not, because of the events of a few days ago, oppose the motion. I do hope sincerely that the Government will never have the occasion to invoke this Regulation in the Assembly, and peaceable settlement of industrial disputes will be so accepted and practised by all organised workers as to make it never again necessary for this Assembly to meet again to consider the need of re-introducing Emergency Regulations which we all deplore.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, every responsible citizen in Singapore must abhor violence, and nobody could look back to the black days of May the 12th and May the 13th without feeling that something is essentially wrong with the present state of affairs, that riots should have taken place. Every resident in Singapore can discourse by the hour on the horrors and the violence which swept our city for two terrifying days last week.

We are for lawful unionism to protect and secure the genuine welfare and interests of the workers, and unionism built on healthy lines working within law and order.

We are very much against any group who will take the law into their own hands and resort to force and violence in order to attain their aims. No decent people can tolerate unlawful actions and beastly violence, and in Singapore these will be serious obstacles in our path to self-government.

Government must be firm against such force and violence so that they may not happen again. To this end, my Party urge that all Parties should sink their differences and give all encouragement and co-operation they can.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, despite my ill-health, I feel it is my bounden duty to say a few words on this occasion. The motion which was moved by the Hon. the Chief Secretary merely asks for the imposition of a certain clause in the Emergency Regulations imposing a curfew, and I thought probably he would deal with the reasons as to why that was necessary. But I find, in the course of the speech, that several points were brought out which should not have been brought out in this debate at all. A description of the events which took place was read out to this sitting, and I felt that a very controversial debate would take place. We are aware that a Commission of Inquiry has been instituted, and at this juncture it would be wrong to state the reasons or the implications of the dispute and the police action.

It has been alleged that the influence of the People's Action Party had created the situation. Well, I, as a trade unionist, have understood the whole position and would suggest that that allegation should not have been brought up at all at this debate, but since it was brought up, may I suggest to the Government that this Commission of Inquiry should be extended to make it a public inquiry so that the public will be able to judge who were involved in this?

Sir, as a trade unionist, I believe that the trouble started because of a very unhealthy situation in the trade union movement. In Singapore, the trade union movement has taken very strong roots ever since 1945, and although we have organisations of various kinds we have yet to realize the real dreams of trade unionism. People have been active in the trade unions, some of them sincerely, and some of them just for the fancy of it. The result today is that even the Singapore Trades Union Congress cannot say very vehemently that it has helped the movement to grow steadily and in the manner in which it should have grown. It has no department to deal with organisation of trade unions. It has no research department to find out how and where the movement went wrong. Therefore I would say that there has been something wrong in the organisation of the trade union movement in Singapore. Sir, ever since 1945, there have been splinter organisations in the trade union movement, and I see with satisfaction that a certain amount of sincerity in the movement has come into being in Singapore's trade unionism today. They have realised that it is only by a sincere and honest trade union movement that the workers will be able to better their prospects, and I think they felt that a splinter union in the Hock Lee Bus Company was very undesirable.

From all the observations which I have made, the dispute was, up to a certain stage, a dispute purely involving the tussle between the Singapore Bus Workers' Union and the Hock Lee Amalgamated Bus Workers' Union. But at a later date the fight for establishing the union's right became involved in a very serious one in which a riot took place. As a trade unionist I have to condemn violence in any form in a trade union movement like we have in Singapore. But let us not say that we move this motion, adopt it and sit on it. What I would like to see is that there should be some sort of a body to reorganise the whole trade union movement into a very strong and beneficial one to the people of Singapore in which they will have a fair share in the management of the trade union and the benefit of experience which other people may be able to give them.

I also believe, Sir, that any action such as the closure of schools would be able to curtail the movement of the Chinese students. I have observed all these years the action taken by the Government to make the Chinese students realize their role as students and as members of the community, but I have found that at all times either the children have been expelled or the schools have been closed, and I should like to know what the Government policy would be in the future to handle the situation. For myself, I believe that they should not enter into politics at this stage. They should be at school, and I feel that they should be educated to become useful citizens of Singapore. May I ask which school in Singapore today has a scheme of educating its students to become useful citizens? We have yet to open a new charter for the students of Singapore. You may have a course in civics or something of that kind, but there is no specific form of education for the students to become useful citizens of Singapore. I would suggest to the Government, Sir, that the working period of schools be shifted from the present 8 o'clock to ten; ten to four or ten to five like that, so that the students will be able to concentrate on their studies properly, go home and have the time to do their homework, rather than having more time to indulge in various other activities. This may be an idea which you all may feel not very applicable here, but I do suggest for your consideration at least to try and see whether this will work.

Sir, talking about the other matters in the Chief Secretary's speech, I regret that certain parts of his speech have been very provocative. It is no use pointing out to somebody and saying: "You are wrong, and I am right." What we all have to emphasize is what is right and what is wrong. By pointing out to me and saying I am wrong or he is wrong, I do not think we will be able to get anywhere, and particularly in a debate like this. Government should try and win the confidence of other opposition Parties by diplomatic means. I think certain statements made have been very provocative, and I believe that in future measures affecting the national interests of the people should be handled in an entirely different way, rather than in a provocative and antagonistic exchange of words.

Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to say that I am an elected representative of the people. As such, I am not answerable for my actions to a colonial official. I am only answerable to the people. Secondly, as a member of the People's Action Party, I stand for a free, democratic Malaya through peaceful and non-violent methods, but I should not support the colonial officials in spreading the negative hysteria of anti-Communism. There is nothing which I can add to the stand of the People's Action Party which was defined by the Secretary of my Party this morning.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to a number of dramatic and solemn speeches, I think I have come to the conclusion that in this House all of us condemn violence, and I am sure all of us want to keep law and order.

There is one point I would want to say about the closure of the Chinese schools. We are not convinced that just by closing the three Chinese schools Government would have accomplished their objective.

We would like to raise a further question on the Government's education policy in general and especially in respect of Chinese education. It is a fact that there are a few people carrying on evil-minded activity in the Chinese schools, and that it has caused the spreading of irresponsible propaganda, teaching and misleading many of the innocent Chinese youths. But one basic fact is that our present Government, the Government elected by the people, forget to remind us that this Government is entirely different from the previous colonial government, and on this point this Government should assure the peoples of Singapore, especially the Chinese-speaking people.

I wonder whether the Government is aware of the dissatisfaction among the Chinese community regarding the so-called Ten-Year Education Plan, the Frisby Supplementary Plan and the White Paper. I heard what the Hon. the Chief Secretary said this morning about the rioting and that the Chinese school committees should do something about it. But he is never aware of or understands what the feelings are these days among the Chinese school children, as well as the parents, the school teachers and the school management committees. They have been patiently waiting for the Government to change their most unpopular education policy. I think that is the basis to clear away the so-called dissatisfaction which is in the Chinese schools.

Coming to the closure of these three schools, we find from reports that in the Hock Lee Bus strike, not only students from the Chung Cheng High School and the Chinese High School are involved, but also a considerable number of girl students and a good number of the onlookers were also involved. It is a most important fact that the student who was killed during the riot was identified as not belonging to either of these two above-mentioned schools.

I would like to emphasize that the activities carried out by students outside their schools are beyond the jurisdiction of the school authority, and we therefore find little justification in Government's action in closing the three Chinese schools. We therefore feel that unless there are good and valid reasons unknown to us to justify the action, the Government must forthwith lift the closure order in respect of the three schools.

In conclusion I am sure the House will share my grief and condolence in the deaths during this rioting, and I am sure their blood will not have flowed in vain.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy (Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate up to now I have found there is one very relevant point raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan), and that is when he said that there was something wrong somewhere. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have come to the crux of the problem if we can answer what is wrong.

We all regret very much the violence we have seen in the last few days in Singapore, but now having taken stock of the situation, what is more important to us is that we should see that such violence does not occur again, and the key to that, I think, is to find out what is wrong with Singapore.

Sir, if anybody who professes himself to be a politician, anybody who professes himself to represent the people, who has gone out to the people, seen them and met them, who really knows the problems of the people, he will be able to tell the answer. Probably some who are in this House may not know the answer, because they have not met the people in the way they should have.

Sir, I have found the answer to that question and that is that the whole trouble is because of our bad and outmoded social system in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister was not flaunting high-sounding phrases over the radio on Thursday night when he blamed the past colonial system. Sir, whoever may be to blame for the lack of social services, it should be apparent that in a society where children who have grown to school age cannot find admission to schools, in a society where the sick cannot get medical attention as they should, Sir, in that society breed the germs of discontent, and it is up to this House - to the representatives of the people sitting here - to find the causes and to try to remove them and find the solutions to the causes. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Labour Front has appealed to the sense of the people, and that is why I think the Labour Front is the answer to the needs of Singapore, and I think it is up to all right-minded citizens of Singapore, who have the interests of Singapore at heart, to support the Government to eradicate those evils in our society so that we may be able to get a contented people in Singapore, who would not then be subjected to the propaganda of those who try to make use of them.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all sad and sick of the recent outbursts of violence in this Colony. The workers of this Colony and their trade unions were concerned over the fact that an employer was intending to break the organisation of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union by trying to foster a 'yellow' union. This fact had united the workers against the employer. The firm measures that the Chief Secretary would have liked to use could only have led to further bitterness and violence. It is therefore the mark of great wisdom as shown by the Chief Minister with great patience and understanding in seeking to reach a settlement. Great credit is due to the Chief Minister in the understanding he displayed under very difficult circumstances.

Mr Ong Piah Teng (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been said by some people that a Nominated Member of this House only represents himself and nobody else. After careful consideration, I am inclined to agree with such remarks, because when a Nominated Member speaks he does not claim to carry or aim at carrying with him a number of followers. He speaks without prejudice or favour. He speaks according to his conscience, and according to what he thinks is in the best interest of the country and its people.

I think anybody who has such interest at heart will agree that the grave events which have taken place during the last few days have done an unlimited amount of harm to the interests and welfare of this country and its people, no matter whether they are employees or employers. Since the grave events leading to the loss of many lives and property, there has followed an atmosphere of uneasy quietness. I do hope that this is the sign of being wiser after the event. But how much better it would be for one to be more cautious and wise before the event?

The present Government has definitely promised us to carry out a number of measures aimed at improving the lot of the workers of this country, and it is only fair to give it a chance to put these measures into execution. All things cannot be done at once. It must be given time. But if in the meanwhile particular sections of workers feel that they have immediate grievances in their conditions of employment, then there are procedures by which such grievances could be brought out to light and measures for putting them right be discussed and negotiated, and if it is felt that the law governing the procedures is not fair to one side or the other, such points could also be brought to this House and discussed, and, if they are really unfair, could be amended. But in the meantime law and order must be maintained. Innocent people and their property must have protection and, above all, the welfare of the country and its people must be safeguarded, for otherwise there will be chaos which will benefit no one.

Now, when a jockey has chosen a horse to ride during a race, he certainly appears to have a better chance to win, but if that horse is over-whipped and, worse still, given an overdose of stimulant, the chances are that that horse will run wild. The able jockey will then lose control of his ride, with the result that he will either be thrown off half way round the track, or be carried at a suicidal speed far beyond the winning post he aimed at - and perhaps over the precipice.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the speakers previously have covered much ground. Some of them have given a history leading to the violence and thereafter. I feel that the price that Singapore has had to pay to settle one trade dispute is too high, with four lives lost and so many people injured. I feel that that sort of way to settle a dispute is not the right way. Indeed, when you come to think about the ways the leaders start settling disputes by a show of force, I feel that it is only right that decent people should come forward and voice their opinion and help the workers to make their decision.

Now, as an example I quote you - trade unions have been established since the war. There have been many people who claim to be their leaders. There are many who would say that they care for the welfare of the workers, but I am not too sure about it. Are they making use of these trade unions as tools for their political ends, or are they really willing tools to be made use of by those trade unions and the workers to better their conditions?

During the last few days the Chief Minister has tried, and tried very hard, to solve a dispute. However, that solution was forced out of him with a 24-hour ultimatum. Should that settlement be not effected, we had been told that there would be greater disorder or a bigger strike. Now, those are forces we are faced with in this world - and are their demands right? Can we withstand such forces? Or do we capitulate before such forces? I can see that the Chief Minister has virtually capitulated, or if that is not so, he has made another party capitulate.

In the negotiations in a trade dispute I feel that the spirit should not be for the strong to demand everything from the other side. I believe that the essence should be compromise. Again, I feel, too, that in Singapore the weapon of strike has been used rather too often. I feel that more opportunities should be given to negotiations before any such weapons are used. Perhaps it is said that we are fighting for a cause. Perhaps that cause is most worthy, but a cause that has caused riots is not going to be one that will be supported by the people. Furthermore, I feel that workers during such strikes led by their so-called leaders have inflicted more pain on themselves and more loss on themselves. During such strikes there are such things as a few arrests and injuries. The so-called leaders are free from such injury. The leaders have suffered no loss of wages, which I think the workers themselves have suffered.

Again, trade unionism, I believe, is going to foster better employer-employee relationship. I find that if this strike weapon is used all along, if we find that to support a small section, the whole lot of the bus workers should go out on strike, are they not only punishing the one they call a defaulting employer but also those who take no part and with whom they have no grouse or grievance? I feel the strike weapon should be used very discreetly.

Again, workers, I believe, should think of the inconvenience they will cause to fellow workers who are dependent on their services. It is not the employer class that is going to suffer, but indeed they are inflicting suffering on the workers who are dependent on them for their services and the children who have got to go to school.

The wise leaders, I believe, have not been too wise. The present strike that has been settled, I should say, has not created a sense of peace in the minds of many people. Indeed, to me and to a lot of other people in Singapore it seems to be only a truce, and that truce might be broken up. When trouble will start nobody knows. Singapore seems to be expectant as to when the next crop of trouble will start.

Previous to this, we have had strikes, genuine trade disputes coming up by single unions, but at present, just these few weeks, there have been crops of strikes. What is behind all this? Government has put forward one or two points. Government probably will do its best. We trust that the Government will do all it could to preserve peace and order, without which it is difficult to work - even for the workers.

The Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall): Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate from the opposite side of the House opened with very statesmanlike remarks from the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) that in this moment of tragedy no Party should seek to take advantage for political purposes of the existing situation. I must confess that the pleasure which those words gave me, the intimation of a sense of responsibility which seems to have come anew to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, was immediately destroyed, because the hon. Member belied his own statement by making the most extraordinary political recriminations, in which he accused me of being guilty of the murder of these four dead men, because I condemned, as I condemn again, colonial capital exploitation of this territory. He accused us of so organising our handling of the situation as to try to get votes.

Sir, there is complete freedom of speech in this place, freedom to be as cheap as a human being can descend to. We have had an example of it today. I would like it to be made clear, Sir, in this stress of tragedy through which we have passed, at a moment when we do not require votes as we are in power, that my Government is very conscious of the extremely weak position of the worker of this territory, and so long as it exists, it will work unflinchingly with the greatest possible emphasis on the welfare of the worker. Hon. Members opposite can speak of capitulation. They can speak what they will. That is our position, and I think it is proper, Sir, at this juncture that the hon. Members of this House should be aware of a manoeuvre which has come to my notice: according to my information, the Party which the Member for Tanglin represents has indulged in active behind-the-scenes negotiations with Members of this House -

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar) rose -

The Chief Minister: Let me finish, Sir. I do not give way.

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clarification - no, unless Mr Chief Minister gives way.

The Chief Minister: I do not give way.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Chief Minister.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: We would like, Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Hon. the Chief Minister makes allegations -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order, Mr Lim?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: - to make sure that his facts are correct before -

Mr Speaker: It is hardly a point of order. Mr Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: I can understand the alarm which the hon. Member feels at what is going to be stated publicly, and I will now repeat it: that the Party represented by those gentlemen, now silent, entered into negotiations with Members across the floor and Members on my side of the House with a view to utilizing the present tragedy and the present opportunity to bring down my Government.

Mr Speaker: Order, please, Mr Chief Minister. I think, Mr Chief Minister, that you will probably be imputing improper motives to other Members of this House, and I think if you leave it at that, you are in order. If you continue, I might have to pull you up.

The Chief Minister: With respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have finished, and I can but regret a rebuke in anticipation of what I do not understand. There is no question of impropriety. They seek power, and that is proper. That they should seek power in this fashion is improper.

The Member for Tanglin made the suggestion that Government could have acted swifter and quicker. I would remind him, Sir, that in a democracy one can only act in harmony with public opinion, and it can only act in opposition to public opinion in moments of urgent stress, and not otherwise. That moment was not reached in Singapore before Thursday, the 12th of May, and we are a democracy, whatever the hon. Members for the P.A.P. may think. The time had not come for the use of the bullet and the Emergency Regulations. Had we, prior to the 13th, sought to use the bullet and the Emergency Regulations as a means of establishing order, we would have destroyed the concept of democracy and its value in this territory completely. We would have identified ourselves with a system which we ourselves abhor. It was important that we should not act in a fashion which would destroy, not ourselves, which does not matter, but which would destroy those ideals for which I trust the great majority of the hon. Members of this House are striving - the ideals of the democratic process. We would have given magnificent propaganda value to those who say that this constitution is unworkable, and that it is not democratic in utilizing, when it seemed unnecessary from surface symptoms, methods which were too drastic.

On the 13th, Sir, representations were made to us by the Police - and this in answer to the hon. Member who asked why the curfew was re-introduced - representations were made to us that the re-introduction of the curfew regulation itself would give an indication that Government intended to take a very firm stand against violence, and that if that indication was not respected, it might well have become necessary for the curfew to be imposed. Hon. Members across the floor will realize that that curfew emergency regulation was, in fact, not used. In answer to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) as to why we should require Emergency Regulations in this territory, when in other territories they seem to quell riots without them, I would remind him that in India, for example - perhaps he knows well - the power of the Police to impose curfew regulations is part of the Penal Code. We have not that power here. The question that is before you is whether we were right at that time to re-impose that curfew regulation. Even more, Sir, is the question whether Government was right in the way it handled the situation and wherein is the root of the causes of that day of terror.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar spoke with a persuasiveness that, to those who are not in the know, completely obliterated his glaring omissions, masterly omissions. I have been today the object of bouquets from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I find them very flattering, for which I am very grateful and which I believe are sincere. But I would be failing in my duty, Sir, if I permitted my appreciation of those acts of courtesy to deter me from giving the House the facts as I believe them. The story that you have heard is that this violence arose out of a dispute of a vital nature essential for the survival of trade unionism. The Member for Tanjong Pagar and every one of his colleagues know the facts. Although originally so, the dispute did not, in fact, pursue those lines as it developed, and although, I believe, the grievances of the dismissed men were legitimate grievances, as indicated by my action in forcing through a solution very favourable to their grievances, their act in parking themselves outside the gates and giving physical obstruction to the passage of the buses was knowingly a criminal act, and the Member for Tanjong Pagar. when he says that, "I am in agreement with this passive resistance," is, in fact, suggesting that he is in agreement with processes which he knows are contrary to the law. That is important in so far as he is concerned, Sir, but not in so far as the workers are concerned. The workers' interests, when they vary with the law - they do not always understand the law - but I think it should be appreciated at this juncture that we were in this Chamber on the 27th when there was that charge, without our knowledge, that morning at the gates of Hock Lee Bus Company in pursuance of the request of the management to clear the gates and allow their buses their lawful right to proceed; that, on the 27th, Sir, a court of inquiry was appointed to inquire into all the matters in dispute between management and labour, and that responsible trade unionists and responsible workers with a sense of civic consciousness, who are aware of their duty to the public as well as to the trade union movement, would have abided in patience the result of that inquiry. And I have not the slightest doubt, Sir, that the man we have appointed, whom the workers themselves respect, may have come to some similar solution to that which I, under the pressure of the tragedy which had occurred, had to bulldoze through in four hours with the assistance of the counsel for the three parties concerned, including the Member for Tanjong Pagar. But that was a procedure which, as the leader of the Progressive Party put it, short-circuited the law and short-circuited the due process of the law, and a procedure which every responsible person and every responsible trade unionist should deplore.

Apart from appointing a court of inquiry, Sir, perhaps wrongly I went down myself seeking, with the assistance of my colleague the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock), some solution, and the workers' statement was, "We know it is against the law, but it is not fair that we should be prohibited from working and earning our living, whilst they are allowed to make profits." Sir, I have said that seemed logical enough, although the law did not support it. But let us say this for the management that has been attacked repeatedly, and I do not say attacked without justice - but let us say this for the management which co-operated valiantly, with considerable restraint, with Government in its efforts to maintain law. The management said, "Very well, we will reinstate these men, without prejudice, and pay them in full, until the recommendations and findings of the court of inquiry are made." So, Sir, from that moment when they were to be reinstated, without prejudice, their salary to be paid, their grievances looked into by a court, there did not any longer exist any question of an industrial character, let alone a question vital to trade unionism which required the continuation of that physical obstruction contrary to the law. Let us get that straight, everyone of us. The hon. Gentleman opposite, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, has one thing in common with Lord Nelson. It is said of Lord Nelson, Sir, that at a certain naval battle his staff captain said, "The Admiral is ordering you to retreat," and Nelson put his telescope to his blind eye and said, "I cannot see that signal. Proceed!" The hon. Member opposite has an extraordinary capacity - an extraordinary capacity, I repeat - for turning a blind eye to unpleasant facts.

I was ingenuously quite shaken by the refusal of the Bus Workers' Union to accept this reinstatement, their grim dislike of the idea of a settlement; and then I realised, Sir, that we were on the 29th April, and from various other items of information at my disposal, this was obviously the hard core of an attempt to work up a demonstration - a test of a political party's own strength for the time when it may have to use it - an intention to have a mass demonstration so successful in character that it would snowball its own membership campaign. And this was confirmed by strikes that grew like mushrooms, all under the control of individuals within the P.A.P. camp.

Sir, in fairness, I would like to say this openly as an individual. I personally accept unhesitatingly the assurance of the Member for Tanjong Pagar opposite that he is not a Communist. I accept that without reservation. I also accept the assurance that he is working for a democratic, non-Communist Malaya. And I say, Sir, I say with respect to him - he is a man of intelligence - that he is allowing himself to be the cat's-paw of forces which he knows to be evil. He, in his hunger for popularity, in his desire to maintain intact this organisation which he has helped to build, in his desire to destroy colonialism - he is working with forces that he knows are evil.

We have had these remarks about Government seeking to stir up anti-Communist hysteria. This is not hysteria. These are facts. Singapore is a political balancing point of Asia today. I love Malaya, Sir, as much as any man in this House, and I am working for a Malaya that will not be a satellite of England or of any other nation in the world. And I am appealing now to persons who are honest, to persons who are genuine, and to persons who are able, to open their eyes to the evils within their own camp. You cannot have one foot in the Communist camp and one foot in the democratic camp. You must come out frankly, and this is the time to come out because, Sir, they must be conscious - the gentlemen across the floor - that they did, in fact, permit their organisation to be utilised fully for the purposes of manoeuvrings workers into an emotional demonstration for 1st May.

The dismissed workers at Hock Lee Bus Company taunted and provoked the police day after day. The students passing police stations were most insulting to the police in the hope that there would be at least one incident out of which capital could be made on 1st May.

One newspaper editorial said that they were tired of hearing about commendable restraint. They may be, but I will repeat it - it is because of Government's restraint that the tragedies which we saw on Thursday, 12th May, did not occur on May 1. It was then planned, Sir, to test this strength which may ultimately be used for the overthrow of the democratic Government - and the cat's-paws, I will name them: the People's Action Party, the poor workers of Singapore whose legitimate grievances have been exploited; and I will show you how. Hon. Members opposite - trade unionists and legal advisers - were deluding this House into believing that it is a vital question of 'yellow' unions that has brought about this dispute. Let me read to you a statement by a gentleman whom the P.A.P. should recognise, in a paper published yesterday. Sir, Fong Swee Suan, whom I think the P.A.P. knows very well - one of its men - as Secretary of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union, published in the Nanyang Siang Pao and the Sin Chew' Jit Pao of yesterday's date - what does he say was the cause of this trouble? Would the P.A.P. take his word for it? He is one of their apostles.

"We would like to point out" - this release is in the name of the Singapore Bus Workers Union - after the settlement, Sir, when they had gained so much -

"We would like to point out that the bloodshed and rioting resulting from the present case was occasioned entirely by acts of violence."

Not the principle of right to collective bargaining, not the principle that 'yellow' unions cannot be tolerated in a healthy trade union movement, but "acts of violence" - just imagine!

"Instead of showing sympathy for the Hock Lee Bus workers, who were dismissed on pretext for no reason by their employer, the authorities, under the protection of the unreasonable Trade Disputes Ordinance, applied corporal punishment thrice on utterly defence - less workers peacefully seeking their own survival."

You know that is false, but that is exactly how the emotions of the workers were roused by hon. Members opposite and their colleagues, and by those other cat's-paws - our deluded and idealistic students. Is this true? Is it? Were they peaceful strikers seeking their own survival? Could they not wait one week until the court of inquiry had made its findings? Was it essential that four should die? Was it?

It is clear that violence should be held responsible - violence - and that is the plea, Sir, that no striker can resist. The workers of this country are responsible people, but they are mainly illiterate in any language - I will not speak of English only - and when you go to them and you say, "Solidarity of the workers de- mands that you stand up and spit at Government for violently attacking peaceful workers seeking their survival," naturally they rise in anger. Only you know that that was not true; that Government did not use violence against peaceful strikers seeking their survival. That was not true. But that is how emotions were worked up and ultimately, Sir, the incident which was sought was capitalised for this other day, which I understand in the Communist calendar is known as "Five One Three" - the 13th of May, the Day of Chinese Student Heroes. That was what it was being worked up for.

I have received from trade unions under the control of the P.A.P. insulting ultimata which no responsible person, no honest trade unionist could tolerate. They know - the people may not know - that they have placed at strategic points in many of these trade unions men who are not workers, and have never been workers in the sense that they work in the unions, in the work which those unions seek to protect. They have placed students and outsiders - who now control them - not for the welfare of the workers, but working through the welfare of the workers at times, with but one object - utilisation of those people for political ends.

We have heard from the hon. Gentleman for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) statesmanlike words today, about how he regrets this violence and how it is unhealthy for all labour - and he is very right. We must all be conscious, Sir, that the events of the, past few days have meant a tremendous setback to many of our aspirations, have destroyed to a large extent the goodwill we had with the Federation, and the hopes we had of union with the Federation. Their present attitude is - and let us get it clear - "We are glad Singapore is no part of us. Singapore is going to be a Red enclave, and we are well rid of it." That is what has been achieved, and I think the P.A.P. - with respect to my friends and thanks for their courtesy - the P.A.P. in its defence today in omitting the truth, glossing over certain facts and presenting them to you on the basis that this was noth- ing but a perfectly legitimate dispute in respect of a vital trade union matter, have proved their own guilt. I do not know, Sir, whether you have noticed in those masterly omissions from the hon. Gentlemen opposite how careful they have been to avoid mentioning the schools and the part that the students of the middle schools played in this tragedy.

In a newspaper editorial today, Sir, I read these words:

"The threat of the middle school students is to the security of Singapore. Their capacity to provoke violence and their obvious subservience to disruptive forces has become evident in the riots."

And it must have been evident to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, so closely related with them.

Sir, while representatives of labour and management and Government achieved a solution with the full co-operation on Saturday of the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the hon. Member behind him (Mr Lim Ching Siong), let us remember that, Sir, it was not in a moment of elation that I thanked them for their co-operation that day, but because I have at all times been prone to gratitude for that which is helpful at the moment, whatever the reason that has inspired that help. Although we recognise that, we must not blind ourselves to the fact that there is in this territory a small group of people who seek to destroy the democratic process by, shall we put it in the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, "seeking to destroy colonialism", and have found ready tools in these gentlemen, and through them in the schools, and through the schools in the Chinese newspapers, for a procedure which would not bring about self-government for this territory, but which would forever destroy any hopes of independence. The hon. Member says, "I have no faith in the Labour Front as a vehicle of its platform." Fair enough, Sir. He says, "I have no faith in the British and do not believe they will keep their promise until we compel them to." Very good, Sir. But he forgets, when he says, "I will not - " - what are his words? - "I will not fight Communism to preserve a colonial Malaya." If he permits, or co-operates with the blind Nelsonian eye in Communism's fight to control Malaya, he will never, ever, have the chance of having an independent Malaya. Many people and many nations which have been satellites of England are now independent. I ask hon. Members opposite to try and think of one single nation which, having been a satellite of Communism, has managed to escape those clutches. One! Name me one! If we allow this territory, because of your desire to destroy colonialism, if we co-operate with Communism, once we are in their clutches, we are not merely out of the frying pan, we are right into the fire. Is that what they want?

If the P.A.P., which consists of responsible, decent, honest men - many of them - if they would purge themselves of the Communists and fellow-travellers that they know they have, if they would face their own responsibility, they could be the organisation that they hope to be that would one day lead this country to win its independence. But along the road that they have so far chosen lies chaos and misery for the people, and they should face it.

On the subject of - I must say a few words, Sir, on the subject of Chinese schools. Others may avoid it, but I must say a few words even though the division is at 4 o'clock, and it is this: That this Government believes in the decency and the worth of the great mass of our youth and their potential; that we believe a tiny group, which does not stop at murder, has given Singapore and the Chinese schools of Singapore a bad name throughout the world. This small group has struck at the heart of Chinese education. Students have been intimidated, coerced; and so have their parents and their principals and their teachers. Students have been driven from class-rooms to the streets. Parents fear for their children's safety and for their own, if they seek to deter their children from participation in these vicious activities.

It is our primary duty as a Government to protect Chinese education in Singapore, and we intend to do it, whether you cry destruction of Chinese culture or no. I am not an expert on Chinese culture, I admit to the hon. Gentleman for Bukit Timah, but I know this much about Chinese culture; the little that I know of it is its exquisite courtesy and reasonableness - not thuggery, which is responsible for a tremendous influence in these middle schools today. We have closed these, Sir, it has been said, two schools. We have not closed them. We have indicated to their trustees that we are extremely dissatisfied with the existing position, and suggested that they be closed. That suggestion has been accepted, and the question is now for us, Sir, quite frankly if they do not accept that suggestion, there are methods of procedure that we can employ, and will employ. We will not evade our responsibilities. Now we are in process of examining to what extent it is necessary to reorganise either or both of those schools, so that the schools may be returned to their primary object of education - education in the arts of life, not in thuggery and intimidation.

Sir, before I close, I, who have been known for many years as a violent antagonist of the Police Force of this colony - and I say now I think with right and justice every time I attacked them - I would like to say this: that from all reports at my disposal, I am amazed and deeply impressed by the wonderful discipline and the magnificent manner in which they performed their duty in a ghastly time. I regret, Sir, that time requires now that I should -

Mr Goode: Sir, point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, might I seek the assent of hon. Members of the House to dispense with the necessary notice so that I could move that our Standing Orders be suspended to enable us to complete our business this afternoon rather than cease at the moment of interruption at 4 o'clock? If you would be prepared to give me your leave, Sir, and the House would agree, I would so move.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): I second it.

Mr Speaker: Have I the general assent of Members that this business shall continue after the moment of interruption?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: Standing Orders are now suspended and the Minister can now move that Standing Order No. 7 be suspended.

Mr Goode: Sir, may I so move that Standing Order No. 7 be suspended to enable us to dispose of this business this afternoon?

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Standing Order No. 7 be suspended so that this business can be disposed of this evening.

Mr Speaker: Let the debate continue.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, it gives me great pain to have to be put into this position to answer an accusation of the Hon. the Chief Minister which I can now say is completely false and without any foundation.

When I entered the Chamber after the adjournment, just before half-past two, I had a few words with the Chief Minister, and he gave me an indication of what was coming. That was why I was very anxious to stop it before he made statements which had been maliciously put to him to discredit our Party, and I must put it to the great stress that he must have been working under during the last few weeks, that he has chosen, in all his wisdom and experience at the Bar, not to give me the benefit of the doubt when I told him, "Do not raise the question now, I can satisfy you."

I can safely say, Sir, that throughout these last few days, the most remote idea in our heads was to topple his Government. We know his Government is in an unassailable position today. They have a tremendous majority, and I, for one, can swear that I have never acted against him or his Party; nor did any member of our Party - I can safely say - try to work to unseat his Government.

In this time of crisis only criminals will do such a thing. Our only thoughts were for the safety, security and happiness of Singapore, and we would never have added to all the uncertainties and commotion of having to change a government during these troublesome times when death was in the streets just a few nights ago, and we know that the trouble may not yet be over.

We were on the point of issuing to the Press a denial that there was such an approach, and it is a great pity that the Chief Minister has chosen to believe lies before he has made proper inquiries. I would at this moment ask him to name the persons whom we have approached, either on this side of the House or on his side of the House, to join us to form a coalition to topple his Government. I do not want to belabour this point, Sir. If there was any doubt in the Chief Minister's mind, this doubt should have been removed this morning when our spokesman for the day assured him that our Party would stand by the Government in its efforts to maintain public order and we are willing not to taunt him any more if he does not carry out some of the impossible promises his Party made in their election platform.

Mr Goode: Sir, I have no wish to reply.

Question put,

That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 4 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (No. 17 of 1948), as amended by the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 39 of 1948) and the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1951 (No. 9 of 1951) resolves that the Emergency (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1955, made on the 13th day of May, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 143 in the Gazette Supplement No. 38 of 13th May, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 10 of 1955, shall continue in force until the expiration or revocation of any Proclamation extending the period of the Proclamation of Emergency published as Notification No. S 219 in the Gazette Supplement No. 50 of 26th July, 1948.

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, Nil; Abstentions, 3. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Nil. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Ede, John. Goh Tong Liang. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Abstentions Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Goh Chew Chua. Sutherland, G. A. P. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Ching Siong. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Absent Jumabhoy, R.

Resolved,

That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 4 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (No. 17 of 1948), as amended by the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 39 of 1948) and the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1951 (No. 9 of 1951) resolves that the Emergency (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1955, made on the 13th day of May, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 143 in the Gazette Supplement No. 38 of 13th May, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 10 of 1955, shall continue in force until the expiration or revocation of any Proclamation extending the period of the Proclamation of Emergency published as Notification No. S 219 in the Gazette Supplement No. 50 of 26th July, 1948.