SINGAPORE COLONY ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1955 (INTERPRETATION)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question - [22nd July]:

That the Speaker do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of this House that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves through their elected representatives;

And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, should be adopted;

And that where the Governor is required by the provisions of the said Order in Council to consult with the Chief Minister before taking any action, he should act in accordance with such advice;

And that the Speaker do report back to this House on the reply he receives from His Excellency the Governor to this message, and that thereafter this Assembly do take such action on motions without notice as the circumstances may require.

Question again proposed.

Mr Tan Theng Chiang (Rochore): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Hon. the Chief Minister. It is indeed tragic that a constitutional crisis should have arisen so early in the life of the present Government. Some people say that the crisis was brought about by my Party's desire to patch up the differences within our Party by offering jobs as Assistant Ministers to Members of the Party. Nothing is further from the truth - that there is any split in the Party. It is only natural for our opponents to fabricate stories and impute sinister motives towards us -

Mr Speaker: I have already overruled any reference to the merits or demerits of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. Will the Member for Rochore please keep away from it?

Mr Tan Theng Chiang: This is the first time in the history of Singapore that elected representatives of the people have been called to shoulder the responsibilities of government, and we do not claim that our Party is overflowing with talent and sufficiently experienced to shoulder such responsibilities. It is therefore necessary that if we are to achieve self-government within a set time-limit, as many persons as possible in the early stages should be afforded the opportunity to acquire experience and knowledge which would enable them to run the government independently in time to come. However, I would observe that to make the Rendel Constitution workable and to prove the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated assurance that we would be given self-government, the constitution should be interpreted as liberally as possible, and it should also be made as flexible as possible. Above all, there should be a spirit of compromise in the event of any difference of opinion arising between the Governor and the Council of Ministers. It is therefore unfortunate that His Excellency should have adopted an adamant attitude on such a minor issue as the appointment of junior Ministers, and precipitated a constitutional crisis. It is of paramount importance that we should make it clear once and for all as to who governs this country - that is, the Governor or the elected representatives of the people. It will be meaningless to claim that it is the people's representatives who govern, if their advice is rejected and their efforts thwarted.

I am glad that this controversy has at least one good effect. It has made the colonial Government come out of its shell and to admit publicly that it was not their intention to grant rapid self-government to the people of Singapore. This has exposed their hypocrisy. Self-government is one of the main platforms of every political Party, not only in Singapore, but also in every colonial territory in the British Empire. However, it is our Party, and our Party alone, which had the courage and foresight to announce that it was our intention to achieve self-government within four years. If we hope for self-government without fixing a definite date for achieving same, it would be tantamount to hoping for the moon. We cannot achieve anything, either in our personal ambitions or in politics, unless we fix our goal and work according to schedule.

While vested interests are happy over the Governor's statement in this respect, the man-in-the-street is doubting whether Her Majesty's Government are genuine in their promise to grant us self-government. If we are wrong in hoping for self-government within four years, let them tell us, in no unmistaken terms, when we would be granted independence.

In the Twentieth Century no civilised nation would like the idea if being subjected to another, and I ask for a clear-cut statement on this point. I am amazed to hear from my hon. Friend Mr Sutherland that there are thousands of Asians in this island who have little to complain of under colonial rule. It shows the narrowness of his sphere of acquaintance. Being an expatriate himself and a representative of the vested interests in the bargain, he cannot be expected to, and would not climb down from his pedestal and mix up with the man-in-the-street to obtain his views on the issue.

I, for one, would grant that we owe a lot to the colonial power in the same way as we are grateful to the pioneering Chinese and Indians who, through their sweat and toil, built up the prosperity of Singapore and Malaya. We are not hostile towards the British, and there is no reason why we should not continue on friendly terms with them even after we have gained our self-government or independence. Colonialism has had its usefulness, but the time has come when we must demand what is our birthright - the right to govern ourselves.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in all territories under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government, Britain holds the responsibility for answering to the United Nations and the world at large for their affairs and administration. That is the reason why in the constitution of every British non-self-governing territory the final say in the administration is vested with the Governor.

If you examine the constitution of Singapore and even more advanced territories like the Gold Coast, you will find that, wherever it is provided that the Governor, before taking any action, should consult a Minister, or even the whole Council of Ministers, the final say rests with the Governor. It is only when there is a transfer of power granting independence to any hitherto dependent territory that you find this reserved power of the Governor eliminated.

The Progressive Party has already made it quite clear that it is in full agreement with the first and second parts of this motion. The third part seeks to place an interpretation which will have the effect of removing some of the Governor's powers and of having the final say in the administration of this country. If such powers are, in fact, to be taken from the Governor, then we shall have the position of the British Government remaining responsible and answerable to the world at large for the affairs of this country, and at the same time deprived of the power of being the ultimate authority over some administrative matters. It is therefore logical that if we demand such powers, then we must be prepared to shoulder all consequential responsibilities.

From the tone in which this debate has been carried on, it is obvious that many, in fact the majority of the Members of this House, are of the view that we should now demand that whenever the Governor should consult the Chief Minister, and a fortiori the Council of Ministers, the Governor should not have the final say. That being the case, let us be honest about it. Let us not ask for these very far-reaching powers without having to shoulder the resulting responsibilities. The demand for these far-reaching powers without the consequential changes in the constitution would result in our having the powers while Britain retains the liabilities. Let us therefore play the game, and ask for a full transfer of power so that we, and we alone, shall be responsible for our own affairs and destiny and the British Government need no longer be answerable for us.

In accordance with the principles which I have stated, I therefore move an amendment, which will not only be in line with the first and second parts of this motion, but also remove all future occasions for dissatisfaction. I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding the following new part between parts three and four of the motion:

"And that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for a transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore, and that a new constitution providing for independence should he granted immediately."

Mr Speaker: May I have that in writing, please?

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second this amendment.

The Chief Minister: Once upon a time, Mr Speaker, Sir, not very long ago, the Progressive Party during the elections, hoping to attract the votes of the Queen's Chinese, and some others, said they were against multi-lingualism. In this House we had the horrible spectacle, Sir, very soon after we sat, of seeing them perform political somersaults -

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister -

The Chief Minister: I apologise , Sir.

Mr Speaker: Can I remind you. Mr Chief Minister, of our Standing Orders? There must not be any offensive or insulting language about Members of the Assembly.

The Chief Minister: With respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progressive Party consists of many parts, of which only the rump is in the Assembly!

On Friday, Sir, we had the spectacle of the existing Members in this Assembly of the Progressive Party complaining bitterly that some power would be taken from the Governor and given to the people's chief elected representative. Today, in order to make a farce of a solemn motion, of one that answers our deep needs, we have an amendment - an amendment which, it is suggested, would be politically impossible for anyone to resist. I am not a politician. I could not survive even one year in the Progressive Party. But I am not afraid of taking honest decisions, whatever the political consequences. Independence today is an impossibility, and may I say, Sir, with respect to the Standing Orders, that the amendment is made by the hon. Gentleman with his tongue in his cheek! We have the Federation of Malaya to consider. We seem to have forgotten it, as in its hustings it seems to have forgotten us. We are not playing a game of marbles: children in a dirty back-alley. We are supposed to be men of responsibility, answerable for the welfare of more than a million people, not political manoeuvres. In these circumstances, Sir, I welcome this further disclosure of the traditional conduct of the Progressive Party, and I move this amendment to the amendment - that for the word 'independence' the word 'self-government' be substituted, and that we do ask for a transfer of power, for self-government immediately. I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: May I have that in writing, please, Mr Chief Minister?

Amendment handed in.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should be only too happy to support the amendment put forward by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck if I thought it was practicable. But, in my opinion, it is impossible to suggest that we are ready for complete independence today. We may be ready in just a few years' time.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, your amendment is in order.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment to the amendment.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are constantly being astonished by the versatility of our friends on my side of the House. I find it almost incredible that a man could come here a week ago and say that we are incapable, we are not fit to tell Her Majesty's Government that her representative should accept the advice of the Chief Minister of this Colony, and on the Monday, after the picture has become a little bit clearer -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. We are now on the amendment to the amendment. We are talking of self-government as against independence.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Member for Tanjong Pagar will have the opportunity of speaking, as he wishes to speak, when the original amendment is put to the House. Now we are concerned with whether or not the word "self-government" should be inserted in the place of "independence". As I understand it, the mover of the original amendment has accepted that amendment to the amendment.

Question, "That the word 'independence' proposed to be left out, be left out of the Original Amendment, and the word 'self-government' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Original amendment, as amended, again proposed.

The Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Member for Paya Lebar moved the amendment just now, he was bewailing and bemoaning the fact that certain powers of His Excel1ency the Governor were going to be taken away and transferred to the representatives of the people. Sir, just after he finished that sentence, he came out with an amendment which sought to give us complete independence; and before one minute had expired, he accepted another amendment to the effect that we wanted self-government.

Now, Sir, self-government and independence are poles apart. This shows the political acrobatics of those who sit in that corner of the House -

Mr Speaker: I must rule the Minister out of order. Will he please withdraw the word "acrobatics"?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I withdraw it. Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we would all rejoice if, for one moment, we could believe that these gentlemen believe in what they are today proposing sincerely and not as a piece of political chicanery.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Kuan Yew, I should like to put this debate on a proper plane. Let us have this debate on a high plane. Let us not come down to personalities. You are offending Standing Order No. 31 (6), which says that no Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member. Remember, hon. Gentlemen, that what you say outside this Assembly cannot necessarily be said in this Assembly because of our Standing Orders.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir. I seldom indulge in what you refer to as personal attacks. My attack on them is not one on their personal merits as Assemblymen or as good fathers and good sons and loving husbands. My attack on them is for the hypocrisy of this move, that, in my opinion -

Mr Speaker: I will not have unparliamentary language in this Assembly. I have said that before. Please continue.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: If the word "hypocrisy", Mr Speaker, Sir, is unparliamentary, may I put it this way? I find it extremely difficult to imagine that within the space of three days a Party, which has stood against more power being given to the Chief Minister, could, in all sincerity, come and say that they would wish Her Majesty's Government to transfer all the Governor's powers to the Chief Minister and his colleagues.

The Chief Minister has said that he is not a politician. Sir, if he were, he would not have accepted this amendment. He would have let it go on the original motion as it stood, for having moved an amendment to minimise the original motion, they would have given us the singular privilege of seeing them vote for that motion. There were three things they could have done on that original motion - either vote for; vote against; or abstain. They could hardly have voted for, because they have moved an amendment.

Sir, now we have the most astonishing spectacle of seeing the Progressive Party being the fiercest Party of us all! They are the people, the Member for Paya Lebar has said it bold and clear, whose cry is "We want independence now!" When the People's Action Party said these things, the world trembled because they thought that if these people got in, then they would do what they said they were going to do. But when the Member for Paya Lebar said it, I can quite imagine the hon. Mr Sutherland being quite unmoved.

Sir, we will have to accept this amendment because the Chief Minister has moved it. If he had not been such a political innocent, he would have forced this issue as it stood and we would have had the privilege of seeing the four Progressive gentlemen vote against that motion, if they had the courage; or abstain, if they had not the courage. Be that as it may, they hope - it is still not certain yet - that they can go back to the country and say, "We went to the Assembly and we said to the Chief Secretary (Mr Goode) that we wanted independence now. And then the Chief Minister, who is a timorous man, said he only wanted self-government. But the Progressive Party believes in independence. It believes in it fearlessly!"

Sir, it is a topic on which I think the People's Action Party is on much more familiar ground. If it is of any assistance to the Member for Paya Lebar, I could give him some of the scripts of the People's Action Party's views in the past on this topic of independence. I think he would make a much more convincing case if he were to crib some of the passages from our Party manifesto and our election platform. The Progressive Party was the one which went before the electorate and said, "We believe" - (the Straits Times gave it tremendous prominence, and I am sure it must have pleased Mr Sutherland very much) - "in slow, orderly peaceful government. We are against all this haste and all this wild talk by irresponsible people of this country for independence." Today we are entertained by the unique spectacle of the mouse turned lion.

Question,

"That a new part be inserted between the third and fourth parts of the Original Question, "And that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for a transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore, and that a new constitution providing for self-government should be granted immediately;",

put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): As the debate developed, Mr Speaker, Sir, on Friday, and as it has developed indeed this morning, we have had a certain amount of Party rancour and even manoeuvre from some of the Opposition Members, which has had, in fact, the happy result of producing an amendment to this motion which has just been accepted, and this has left us pretty well where we were before. The Progressive Party are anxious to attach a name to what would already have been the substance in any case. What do they mean by "immediately" I do not know. I presume they do not expect a new constitution to be written tonight and published tomorrow, but they will no doubt accept that "immediately" means "as soon as possible".

Now, I hope that we have, with this last amendment, reached the end of the party strife and manoeuvre, because this is a matter which should rise far above personal and party feelings. As the Chief Minister opened the debate on Friday, he informed the Opposition that the Party Whip had been withdrawn, and he invited all Members to speak and to vote in accordance with their innermost convictions. I hope that from now on all will do so. I hope all have done so so far. But although the Chief Minister did his best to secure that we should be free from party strife, there were and there have been a number of bitter words, imputations and recriminations, which have compelled you, Mr Speaker, to intervene and to remind us continually of the Standing Orders. Members have gone beyond what is permissible in this chaste Assembly, and as a result there has been some confusion of the constitutional issue. I wish to stress again that the importance of this constitutional issue lies finally in the fact that we are all substantially agreed on it. If there was real disagreement in this House, the issue would be dead, or at least would have to be kept in cold storage until you could get substantial unanimity in the people and in their representatives. But since all are agreed, then we should all speak and vote in unity; vote loyally to give effect to the wishes of the people; give effect to our own innermost convictions. But to try to reap party advantage on this occasion, to give vent to personal ill-feeling, bears the appearance of indescribable small-mindedness. Tomorrow there will be a proper and full opportunity for all the bitterness, the party strife, the rancour, the manoeuvres, the imputations, the misrepresentations, in which some Members are happy to indulge. But today can we not all join to put forward together the cause of freedom, the cause of self-government, on which we all agree? And if today is no time for party bitterness, I suggest that it is also no time for expressing bitterness against the Imperial power, or against the representatives of the Imperial power in this territory.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: This sounds like moral rearmament!

Mr Francis Thomas: It is rather more practical than moral rearmament. We have in the world today three major world groupings. You have, to the north of us, what the geo-politicians call the "heart-land", which is controlled by the Communists - Russia, China and their dependencies and subordinate bodies. You have, across the Pacific, the United States of America with its dependencies and its dollar diplomacy; and you have, away on the west of us, the United Kingdom and around us the Commonwealth of Nations. And as the world is today, no small territory can stand alone. We are a small territory. We shall still be small when we have achieved union with the Federation. We cannot stand alone. We shall have to associate ourselves with one of these major world groupings. And if a choice has to be made, there is no doubt in my mind that the choice should fall on the Commonwealth of Nations. I say this without prejudice to what I hope we shall achieve in the future - which is a fourth major world grouping, which would extend from the Himalayas to the South Pacific, to include so many new and free nations and peoples, and which we hope could rise above the greeds and jealousies, rivalries, disputes and war and folly, which have disgraced the history of the great Powers in the past. But that is over the horizon of the future still, and for the time being this territory will have no choice but to go with one of the three major world groupings that I have named. It appears to me that all the advantage to us will lie in retaining in some form our present association. So I shall refrain from wounding words and from bitterness, and perhaps I might take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir - and here I am sure I shall not transgress Standing Orders - in expressing my personal feelings, my deep sense of the most fulsome compliment which was paid by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) when he was speaking about the Chief Minister. I know that he was pulled up for improper language in parts of his speech, but nevertheless he did describe the Chief Minister as a bee, a honey bee, and I thought it was a most appropriate comparison to make -

Mr R. Jumabhoy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it necessary to make references now on this?

The Chief Minister: Why, does it hurt you? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to make his speech. If he is irrelevant, I will pull him up. Mr Thomas.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am sorry that the Member for Telok Ayer is not happy with my enlarging on his metaphor, but I would like to complete it. In comparing the Chief Minister to a bee, I felt it was most appropriate because the bee is such an energetic fellow. With incessant energy he continues to accumulate honey, not for himself but for the service of others. Moreover, the bee is, when attacked, armed with a sting with which he can do damage!

Now, on Friday, the Chief Minister argued - and I felt with very great force and cogency - that in the relevant section of the constitutional document the word "may" is directive and not permissive. This point seems to present some difficulty, perhaps, to some Members of this House, and certainly elsewhere, and if people are unconvinced, I would suggest that, for the purposes of argument, I shall pass by the Chief Minister's array of legal authorities, his picul or so of calf-bound tomes which he brought with him in case they were needed, and I will grant, purely for purposes of argument, that in this matter His Excellency has certain discretionary powers. I will proceed to examine what is then the position if those powers, in fact, are rightly in His Excellency's control.

I will quote as my first authority Professor Barriedale Keith. His textbook - the British Cabinet System - is, I believe, a reasonable work of reference which is accepted as an authority. He points out that when a British Colony adopts the British Cabinet system - as we are doing here - it necessarily adopts also the fundamental principles and practice of the British Cabinet system. And so, if we can accept Professor Keith as being right - and obviously he must be because you cannot adopt a model of democracy without adopting the principles which have produced that model - if he is right, we have to examine the principles on which we are hoping to proceed. Our attention has been very much fixed on one major principle, which is that the Sovereign, or in this territory the Sovereign's representative, should act on the advice of his Ministers when it is formally and officially tendered to him through the Chief Minister. That principle, I think, is clear to everybody, and nobody has any difficulty or doubt about the statement of the principle. Where the difficulty and doubt has come, at least in His Excellency's mind, is whether that principle should be applied here and now. My object is to show that it can and should be applied, without hesitation and without delay.

I will quote, in support of that, another principle which is equally fundamental and perhaps more far-reaching: a principle which can best be stated by saying that the constitution must be flexible. It must have flexibility and the possibility of adaptation to things as they change. In Britain, there is no written constitution. You have various fixed constitutional points such as Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights, or the Parliament Act of 1911, or the Habeas Corpus Act, which can be called constitutional documents, but they do not amount to a written constitution. In so far as they have any effect, their effect is to give more freedom and more liberty of action. They do not restrict people in any way, except to restrict the power of the Executive to some extent.

The Commonwealth of Nations also has no written constitution. The whole British system is based on the fact that you deal with situations as they arise, and you do not tie yourself down in writing to an intention which you cannot, in fact, carry out because the situation has changed.

You do have in the United States of America a written constitution, and they get into quite a mess with it sometimes. My little reading in American history has indicated that they get conflicting interpretations according to the political colour of the country at different times. There is a fairly long time lag between changes, and certainly in Singapore we have already got into some difficulty with our written constitution. It is precisely because we have a written constitution that we need this principle of flexibility. It was inevitable that we should have a constitution written, because whilst elsewhere constitutions have grown up slowly over a long period of time, here no opportunity for constitutional progress was made. If progress had started 50 years ago, we should now no doubt have conventions instead of a written constitution, but we have not. We have to cram into a few years the progress that might well have been spread over half a century.

And so I pass to my next authority. This is no massive tome, but I received it some two or three months ago from our worthy friend the Public Relations Officer. It is published by the Central Office of Information. The title is The Monarchy and The Commonwealth, and it says on the inside cover that this document is intended as reference material and is derived from authoritative sources and may be freely used in preparing articles, speeches, broadcasts, etc. I take it that it is authoritative, because it comes from an authoritative source, and I take it as being a reasonable and fair statement of what the British position is.

"Constitutional conventions differ from strict law in that they are not recognised and applied by the Courts" - I know that some Members of this House wish them to be brought to the Courts, but they did not appreciate the British approach to constitutional problems. They are not recognised and applied by the Courts - "but nevertheless they are indispensable and lend themselves to adaptation to changing conditions without serious disturbance to existing legislative forms. It was largely by means of the firm establishment of such conventions that in the course of centuries restrictions were imposed on the use of the Royal prerogative and that the powers of the Crown, ceasing to be at the personal disposal of the Sovereign" - or in Singapore the Sovereign's representative - "came to be the means of giving effect to the wishes of the people". I will repeat the two key portions of that quotation - "adaptation to changing conditions without serious disturbance to existing legislative forms". We have changing conditions. They have changed rapidly. We do need to be able to adapt to them. The Progressive Party has now made it necessary, through their amendment, that we should disturb the existing legislative forms. The point is not of any vital importance, it seems to me in this case, but, as far as it goes, they have gone somewhat against the general spirit of democracy; but it does not matter very much. The other portion which I wish to remind Members of is - "powers of the Crown came to be the means of giving effect to the wishes of the people". His Excellency is the representative of the Crown, and it is not unreasonable to hope that the powers which he exercises now can, by a simple constitutional transference, without serious disturbance of any sort, either legislative or any other kind, become the means of giving effect to the wishes of the people.

I do not know whether it is necessary to argue this point any further, but I think perhaps it will be useful to cover briefly the interpretation of this, as it is quoted in this booklet, in the history of Canada, which is called the senior Dominion of the British Commonwealth. Hon. Members will recollect, no doubt, the American Revolution where the Imperial power stood on its strict constitutional rights and, as a consequence, lost its American colonies which now become the great and dollar - powerful United States of America, with whom we have, happily, friendly relations. That gave the British Government furiously to think, and at the end of about 70 years they had thought it all out and Lord Durham went to Canada and produced in 1839 a Report from which the future development of the Commonwealth has grown. The effect of this Report was that although there were powers retained and reserved - powers of disallowance, surveillance and so on, which were retained by the Imperial Government - they were not, in fact, used and they were obsolete long before they were removed. In other words, it was perfectly feasible under the British practice to have powers, but not to use them. The situation did not call for them. Canada was perfectly competent to act responsibly, achieving economic and political independence. The principle of flexibility was applied, and although the powers were there they were not used.

I have no doubt that the Rendel Constitutional Commission, as they surveyed the field of Singapore with conscientious thoroughness, brought to their study the full knowledge of this principle of flexibility, and they also knew, I am sure, that in the wrong hands flexibility could degenerate into flabbiness. They might wish that the Governor should be strong, because on surveying the Singapore scene at that time they felt that there was a danger of flabbiness. They felt that democracy was a difficult thing to transplant into this tropical climate. They might have had in their minds the old quotation from Rudyard Kipling that "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet": and they might have wondered whether, in fact, democracy could be transplanted into Singapore in the course of a few years - that fragile flower might wilt and droop, become flabby and might need a strong gardener in the person of the Governor to drive in a stake and tie the plant to it so that it might stand up, until it had gathered enough strength to stand by itself. I am only assuming what might have been in the minds of the Rendel Constitutional Commission, but I would suggest that we might take note of the whole of what Kipling said, because it is rather relevant. "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat; But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!"

That is our situation today. We have two strong men - His Excellency and cur Chief Minister. They have come into conflict. They are grappling today in a constitutional struggle, and in that struggle the great gap between East and West is abolished. It is brought together into a single democratic process, which, as democratic processes do, is producing difficulties, making the sparks fly; but out of it we see this. The struggle between His Excellency and the Chief Minister is a clear and obvious proof that democracy has taken strong root here and is already a real and vital political principle at the very heart of our political life. This struggle would not have been possible, as I pointed out before, if there was not substantial unanimity, and if the Chief Minister was not representing effectively the wishes of the people and of the representatives of the people. There can be no question about it.

When this struggle resolves itself, I think it will be plain that Singapore has taken a great step forward. We shall be grateful not only to the Chief Minister for fighting this battle, but we may well feel grateful to His Excellency for having provided the occasion for the battle. Because this struggle has given to us the opportunity of demonstrating to the whole world that Singapore no longer needs to receive democracy as a gift, but has taken democracy and made it her own; is able to use it and live it, and fight for it, and to succeed in its practice and in the interpretation of its principles. This constitutional struggle is nothing new. It was foreshadowed in the very heavy poll at the time of the elections. In spite of some ingenious simple arithmetic, the fact remains that the poll was extremely heavy. The electoral register contained numerous errors, and although there may have been in theory some 300,000 potential electors, the actual figure was much nearer 200,000 and the poll was an exceptionally high poll for any democratic country, and an astonishing poll in a place like Singapore with a small and weak democratic tradition. If further proof of the strength of democracy here is needed, it has been given in the energy and vigour of the Chief Minister's Government. His Excellency's powers to prop and shelter the flower of democracy are no longer needed. Where they should have been a support, they are now an encumbrance, a hindrance, and an obstruction to the free development, growth and movement of the democratic process. We need flexibility and not rigidity, and I would like to close by quoting to the House what, to my astonishment, nobody has quoted so far - Sir John Nicoll's words to this House on the 22nd of April in his Opening Address:

"We have already had a most striking demonstration of the realisation by the people of Singapore of their responsibilities in this matter" (that is in the matter of the new constitution). "The General Election held earlier this month showed that the people of Singapore understand the importance of the vote and the need for casting their votes in accordance with their convictions. It is now for the Council of Ministers and this Assembly as a whole to see to it that the popular will thus democratically expressed is carried out. Let no man suppose that he knows better than the Election results."

On that note I would like to end with these last words: That out of this struggle, and out of our ultimate victory in it, there can grow a new unity of the people of Singapore. We can look forward to a period of useful and prosperous relationships between His Excellency and all that he stands for, and the Chief Minister and all that he stands for.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue before this House is an issue which involves not only the interpretation of the Order in Council, but also the sin- cerity of the Colonial Office and, in particular, of the British Government towards granting self-government to this island. I wish Members of this House would realise the significance and the gravity of the situation. It is not something which could be treated with emotion or hilarity. The outcome of this debate will depend, to a great extent, on whether or not this Government is capable of carrying out its proper functions in a spirit of goodwill and understanding.

The Chief Minister has pointed out on various occasions that there could be no responsibility without power. For three and a half months, Sir, the Coalition Government has had to face and to solve problems which would do credit to a Solomon. Much against our will, but because we thought it was for the good of the people of Singapore, we acquiesced in the use of the Emergency Regulations, and when criticisms came thundering in, it was not His Excellency the Governor nor was it the Hon. the Chief Secretary who had to face the music. It was the Coalition Government who was responsible. It was the Coalition Government who was the bad hat.

We, the Elected Members on this side of the House, have never shirked our responsibility either to the people of Singapore or for the conduct of good government. If we are to be responsible, I say, and I say it with conviction, let us also share in the power which we firmly believe is embodied in the Order in Council. What is this power that we say is ours by right? Is it the power to corrupt? Is it the power to destroy? No, Mr Speaker, it is the power to enable us to carry out our duties as responsible and elected Ministers of the people with the dignity it deserves.

Some Members in this House have insinuated that the interpretation of section 32 of the Order in Council was the interpretation of the Chief Minister himself. If this were so, I would not be standing here today addressing you. The interpretation, Mr Speaker, is no more the interpretation of the Chief Minister than it is mine. It is the interpretation of the Coalition Government as a whole. The Chief Minister is no dictator. It is to his credit that during my sojourn in hospital, he visited me on no less than six occasions to consult me on every important aspect of government.

Insinuations have also been made that there is a split in opinions within the Coalition itself. If this had been intended to mean that the Alliance thinks differently, then I say to you, Sir, that it is absolute nonsense. On this particular issue, we of the Alliance have no doubt at all. We sink or swim together with our friends the Labour Front, and with our good friends across the table, the People's Action Party.

My only hope, my only prayer, is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he arrives here this week, would be made to realise how deeply we feel about the present crisis. Let him also realise that we, the people of Singapore, want 'Merdeka', not a revolutionary 'Merdeka', Mr Speaker, but an evolutionary one. Lest I tread on the sensitive toes of the hon. Mr Sutherland, let me assure him in advance, I shall not shout 'Merdeka' seventeen times within his hearing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I repeat, once again, there can be no stable government in this island, unless and until responsibility goes hand in hand with power.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, one newspaper has suggested that the Chief Minister does not have the full support of his colleagues in his fight to gain recognition of the fundamental rights of the people's elected representatives. This is utter nonsense, Sir. We are with him to the hilt. It is not the Chief Minister's fight at all. It is the fight of every self-respecting representative of the people, and I am happy to say that there are many in this Assembly.

We on this side of the House are prepared to resign, if we are not given the power that goes with the responsibilities. The hon. Mr Sutherland, Sir, in his speech last Friday, made a very brave attempt to defend the British colonial system. He stated that we must learn to crawl before we can walk. For the benefit of the Member, Sir, I would like to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that we on this side of the House do not crawl and are not so spineless as to crawl, and they, too, Sir, on the other side of the House do not belong to that species that grovels and begs for crumbs from the colonial table.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): It was an analogy!

Mr Lim Yew Hock: We stand erect on our feet -

An hon. Member: I think it is an analogy, too.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: We stand erect, fighting on our feet for our just rights, and the speed at which we travel towards self-government and independence is geared to the will of the people of Singapore, and is not chained to the colonial chariot, with the Secretary of State holding the reins. If we want, if we, the people of Singapore, want self-government and independence tomorrow, we will have it, and nothing is going to stop us.

Sir, the handful of Progressive Members who survived the elections, together with the Member for Telok Ayer, made ridiculous attempts to cloud the issue by making odious suggestions about the Chief Minister's recommendation for the appointment of four Assistant Ministers. The Chief Minister, Sir, has clearly stated that this is a side issue, and that he is prepared to reconsider his recommendation, but it is imperative in the interests of the welfare of the people of Singapore, and in the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's oft-repeated promise of granting self-government, that section 32 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council should be interpreted in a manner in keeping with the spirit of the Rendel Constitution; and this is, Sir, that in so far as domestic matters are concerned, the people's representatives should have absolute control. I am qualified to make this statement because I was a member of the Rendel Commission; perhaps I am the only surviving member of the Rendel Commission.

Sir, as regards the interpretation of section 32 of the Order in Council, it appears that the whole question hinges on the interpretation of the word "may". The Governor's interpretation is that it connotes the exercise of discretionary power, and the Chief Minister's interpretation is that it connotes the granting of authority to exercise, which authority must be exercised when the circumstances stated therein arise. The Chief Minister has quoted legal authority to support his interpretation. Sir, I am not a lawyer by profession, and I am therefore not qualified to touch on the legal aspect in my contribution to the debate on the motion before the House.

Sir, I have stated on several occasions in the last Legislative Council that the English language is indeed difficult to understand, and I find it necessary in this present instance to repeat what I said to illustrate the point. Two friends, Sir, a Frenchman and an Englishman, were travelling in a train in England. When the train was approaching a tunnel, the Englishman shouted, "Look out!" The Frenchman, on hearing this command, looked out, and got soot all over his face. He turned round angrily to the Englishman and demanded an apology for having played such a dirty game on him. The Englishman was very surprised, but he felt sorry for the Frenchman's ignorance of the English language. He, therefore, explained calmly to the Frenchman that when he said "look out", he meant "look in". So the Frenchman scratched his head and muttered, "You English are a funny race. When you mean 'look in', why do you have to say 'look out'?" Mr Speaker, Sir, the English language is indeed difficult to understand, and when "look out" can mean "look in", surely "may" can mean "shall"? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is important to the people of Singapore is not how the Governor interprets section 32, or how the Chief Minister interprets section 32. The deciding factor should be - what is the popular interpretation? By this, I mean, what is the interpretation of the for the expression of this interpretation amendment. With that amendment, Sir, constitution was drawn up? The forum is in this Assembly, by the people's representatives. We, who are gathered here this morning, are the people's representatives, and we are here to express the people's views, their aims, and their aspirations.

When I was at school, Sir, I was taught English history, and I learned that when King Charles I attempted to interpret the constitution according to his will and not according to the will of the people, he brought upon himself a fate which we all know. The purpose of the motion before the House is to impress on Whitehall to take cognizance of the will of the people through their elected representatives, and I ask Whitehall to take new heed. The debate last Friday, Sir, has shown that there are elected representatives and elected representatives, and I hesitate to expand on this, because, even with the privilege of this House in freedom of speech, I am afraid I cannot find words apt enough to describe what I mean by the second type of elected representatives, but without uttering those words. Sir, I feel sure that the people of Singapore know what they are. The hon. Mr Sutherland, Sir, in his speech last Friday, asked, "Who are the people of Singapore?"

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland: Yes, you tell me!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: I wish to enlighten him, Sir, and perhaps improve his political education, but I am rather hesitant, when I have to do this in a language that is difficult to understand, that is, the English language. The people of Singapore, as embodied in the first part of the motion before the House, are the people who are represented by their representatives in this Assembly, and in a democracy, the majority view represents the view of the people.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Back-bencher, it is not easy to be original, but I think the long, full week-end has enabled Members of the Progressive Party ample time to adjust themselves to enable them to come to this House this morning with their people of Singapore for whose welfare the they have deprived themselves of the right to use the habitual 'No' to any motion coming from this side of the House, and the Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, in supporting that amendment, has also deprived himself of the right to be a professional abstainer.

I am not, Sir, issuing a threat, but I am sounding a warning of the danger, if self-government to be followed in good time by independence is not granted, but is delayed intentionally or otherwise, of the consequences, which we all should like to avoid. I am one, Sir, who believes that if the power, against whom today we are struggling to get our self-government and independence, would co-operate with us and help us to achieve what we aim for, it is not impossible that when we have obtained our independence, we should be friends and behave to our mutual benefit.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very sad that attempts were made by some Members on the Opposition benches last Friday to sidetrack the real issue which was put squarely before this House by the Chief Minister. The issue was very simple. We were asked to express our determination to rule ourselves. No wonder there was much moaning and wailing from some of them. They could no longer sit on the fence. Their delicate constitutions could not stomach such an outspoken principle as self-rule. Yet, as elected representatives, they could not very well oppose it. If they did, they would be exposed to the public. They could not stand up and declare, "We shall have none of it." That would require courage. So they tried to side-track and attempted to cloud the real issue -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Minister must not impute improper motives to a Member of this Assembly.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sorry, Sir. So much emphasis was therefore laid on the question of Assistant Ministers. Charges of deceit have been made against the Chief Minister. With well-feigned righteousness, they cried, "Why was a minor matter allowed to develop into a constitutional issue?" This was the method to confuse the House. It did not occur to them that a major point of principle had emerged, as a result of the raising of a minor matter. I shall now, therefore, put it in simple schoolboy language, which perhaps they may be able to understand better -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. That is offensive language. Will the Minister please withdraw that?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sorry, Sir. I shall therefore put it in very simple language. The Chief Minister has not made a mountain out of a molehill; rather not even expecting a molehill, he discovered a mountain, and when this mountain was discovered, it became the duty of a democratically elected representative of the people's House to put it before the House for their views. This he tried to do by putting in this motion in the true and humble spirit of one who has dedicated himself to the cause of the people. But was he appreciated? No. Fears were expressed that he might turn dictator. I say shame, Sir. What a sad mutilation of facts!

Sir, the Progressives tried last Friday to amend the motion so that it would appear to the people that they supported the principle of the motion. Yet by deleting the last portion of the motion, they could then have the motion put on paper only as an ideal that would remain on paper and which could not be put into practice. That is in keeping with many of the ideals that they had told the public often during their election campaigns. There is one ideal about Malayanisation, which was accepted by them long ago, but it is on paper and has remained on paper.

Sir, now when they found themselves cornered, they have taken to the word "Progressive" with a vengeance, and progress has been achieved by leaps and bounds during the week-end, and from the wailings and moanings about powers that may be taken away from the Governor, they have jumped to an ideal of independence and later accepted self-government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not, for one moment, think that the people of this country can be fooled by such tactics.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the privilege of supporting the Chief Minister's motion which, in my opinion, truly represents the expression of the political sentiments of the vast majority of the people of Singapore.

In discussing this motion, however, I am guided by one brave principle and that is, what is right and not who is right. To me, Sir, the entire Order in Council is inadequate to run the government in the interests of the people. Many of its sections do not represent the true spirit of the recommendations of the Rendel Constitutional Commission. I shall try to give you, Sir, a special instance. Paragraph 68 of the Rendel Constitution Report states as follows:

"We recommend that the method of appointment of the six Elected Ministers, and of any junior Ministers, should closely follow the constitutional practice in the United Kingdom and should be as follows. On the result of the election being known, the Leader of the largest Party or Party group in the Assembly would become the "Leader of the House", and as such would exercise many of the functions which would normally devolve on a Prime Minister in a fully self-governing State. The Leader of the House would then be asked by the Governor, with whom the power of appointment and dismissal of Ministers must necessarily lie, to submit a list of names, including his own name, of Elected Members of his Party (or of any coalition of Parties which might be formed to secure the necessary majority in the Assembly) to fill the six Ministerial posts and the one or more junior Ministerial posts referred to above. This list might, if necessary, include the name of a Nominated Unofficial Member as suggested in paragraph 61 above. Unless there were some consideration which in the view of the Governor seemed likely to render any particular appointment contrary to the public interest, the Governor would then appoint the candidates proposed to the six Ministries and to the junior Ministerial post or posts concerned."

Sir, there was a definite suggestion in the Rendel Constitution recommendations to model the Singapore Constitution on the constitutional practice of the United Kingdom, the only exception being as follows:

"Unless there were some consideration which in the view of the Governor seemed likely to render any particular appointment contrary to the public interest, the Governor would then appoint the candidates proposed to the six Ministries and to the junior Ministerial post or posts concerned."

Sir, having elevated the position of the Chief Minister, in the exercise of many of his functions, to the one that would normally devolve on the Prime Minister of a fully self-governing State, it would seem to me that the Order in Council expects him to perform the duty as a feudal vassal in a feudal court.

Sir, the declaration of Her Majesty's Government on the future of the country appears to be very flexible against a rigid Order in Council - gradual self-government for Singapore and Malaya. Only misguided politicians will entertain the truthfulness of this kind of self-government. We have heard a similar declaration in respect of India a few years ago, and let us examine how gradual self-government worked in India. In 1917, the United Kingdom Government declared the objective of its future policy towards India. This was the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. In pursuance of this policy, the Montague-Chelmford Report made recommendations for the setting up of new institutions in the provinces and at the centre, and these were, to a very large extent, implemented in the Government of India Act of 1919, which considerably increased Indian participation in the government. The franchise was widened, the provincial legislatures were enlarged, and the principle of diarchy was introduced. Under this system, Sir, in the provincial government a number of portfolios were held by Ministers who sat in the Governor's Executive Council, but were responsible to the Legislature, while other portfolios including finance, law and order were dealt with by the officials who were also members of the provincial Governor's Executive Council, but were responsible to the Governor and, in the last resort, to the Government of the United Kingdom and not to the Legislature.

Sir, the situation in Singapore today is like that which existed in India thirty-six years ago. The promise of gradual self-government to India in 1919 meant continual domination by the British Government up to 1947 when independence was realised by India - twenty-eight years after the United Kingdom declared their policy. Sir, if that is the sort of slow self-government for Singapore, I am really sad. The people of Singapore, especially the freedom-loving people, would expect a further and clearer statement of policy on self-government from the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he arrives in Singapore.

Sir, the motion before the House today is a very timely reminder to the Malayan people that independence is not just a ready-made product that will be imported into this country tax-free. It should be won by the people by struggle and at the expense of great sacrifice. Let us today reiterate our determination to pursue our struggle. Let the people remember this day as a red-letter day in the history of our struggle for constitutional reform and right. Let us also ignore the lone voice of a few reactionaries who are trying to enslave our people by misrepresentation of our political goal. If we are true and sincere to ourselves and to our people, I am sure we will achieve our goal.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the speech made by Mr Sutherland, champion for the British expatriates, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a European friend of mine who was connected with the rubber tyre industry. I asked him one day why he did not advise his company to start a factory in Malaya instead of sending the raw materials to England, eight thousand miles away. "Do not be stupid," he said, "our tyres can still sell in Malaya, can they not? If that is so, what is the point in establishing a factory in Malaya? The rubber is being shipped to England in British ships, insured with British companies, handled by British workmen on the other side, manufactured by British factories and gives employment to British workmen. If there is any profit to be made, do you not think we would like to make it? If there is any starvation, it is better to be your brothers and sisters than ours." This must be the reason in the mind of Mr Sutherland when he spoke so strongly against the motion on Friday last, because, as he said, he represents the interests of the British expatriates, and as long as the British expatriates' interests are well looked after, the people of Singapore can go to hell -

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong - [Interruption.] Can I have some order, please. I do not think the word "hell" can be considered as parliamentary.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I am sorry, Sir. Today, we are faced with what is virtually a test case. Are we, as Ministers and elected representatives of the people, going to have a real say in the affairs of Singapore? True, the Governor has discretionary powers, but does that mean we are to be little children over whose decisions the Governor can over-ride us as he pleases? Doubtless, he has the welfare of Singapore at heart, but so has everyone else in this Assembly. We, as Assemblymen, do not seek the approval of the Governor only, but we have the well-being of the public in mind in whatever decisions we make. Otherwise, we are the elected representatives of the people in name only, in which case one sees no point in being an Assemblyman. If, on the other hand, we are to be considered as responsible men, then our word should carry full weight.

Today, we are fighting over the principle of the matter. If we are baulked or likely to be baulked at every stage in any decision we may make, then the Order in Council is interpreted in a way definitely not as expected of the British Government. When a matter is at issue, it should be settled in the Assembly. Once that stage is passed, there should be no hindrance, unless a decision is outside our power. If a decision made is wrong, then those who form the Government will have to answer for it. Are we to cater for the wishes of the Governor, or are we, as Assemblymen, elected by the people and responsible to the people?

At his installation, not long ago, the Governor said:

"The principal instrument of policy is now the Council of Ministers; the Governor acts in accordance with the Council's advice, and the successful functioning of the Constitution is a burden which falls directly on the Council.

Perhaps, there are people who still do not understand adequately what is meant by the Council of Ministers responsible to a popularly elected Legislature. The effect of its introduction in Singapore has been the transfer of power and responsibility from an external authority to the authority of the people themselves. If, therefore, the people, or a section of the people, obstruct or frustrate the acts of the Government, then they are challenging what is no longer an external authority, but the authority for which they gave the mandate at the recent elections."

We take it that these words were spoken in sincerity and that they should be acted upon. The Alliance has been fighting for self-government since its inception, and will continue to fight for it until the evil of colonialism is completely eradicated out of this territory.

I hope all those hon. Members of this House who have the interests and confidence of the local people at heart will support this motion, as one of them may be the next Chief Minister.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the motion that was proposed by the Member for Paya Lebar for the Progressive side has taken me rather by surprise. On further considering the matter, I am of the opinion that it rather clouds the original motion standing in the name of the Chief Minister. The intention of the motion of the Chief Minister is that you. Sir, do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of the House and that you do report back to the House the reply you receive from His Excellency. The amended amendment to the motion does not, in fact, permit His Excellency the Governor to make any reply, because it directly concerns the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and for that reason, Sir, I do propose a further amendment:

That at the end of the new paragraph between paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original motion these words be added:

"and that such view be conveyed by His Excellency the Governor to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

You will appreciate, Sir, and I am sure the hon. Members of this House will appreciate, that that is a matter upon which His Excellency cannot reply and is a matter which only the Secretary' of State for the Colonies can give effect to.

Mr Speaker: Can I have that in writing?

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member indicate whether that addition is at the end of the new paragraph or is that a new paragraph by itself?

Mr Braga: At the end of the new paragraph.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.The amendment is in order.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment.

It is not in the Governor's power to grant self-government to the people of Singapore. This power is only in the British Government in Whitehall.

Mr Speaker: A further amendment has been proposed, that is:

That the following words be inserted at the end of the new paragraph which I have numbered 4:

"and that such view be conveyed by His Excel1ency the Governor to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

So that, paragraph 4 will then read:

"And that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore that a new Constitution providing for self-government should be granted immediately, and that such view be conveyed by His Excellency the Governor to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The original Question as further amended is now before the House.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this has been a very heartening debate. I am conscious of my personal failings, one of which is that when I am attacked, I react immediately by trying to attack twice as hard. In that way I make no friends, and I appreciate I have made many enemies on the opposite Benches. It was my duty as a Malayan to appeal for an impersonal, for a national view of the problem, and I am deeply grateful, Sir, that the P.A.P. has responded in so magnificent a manner, transcending our personal animosities and coming clearly shoulder to shoulder with me in the struggle in the name of the people of this country. I am also very appreciative of what, if I may be permitted to say so, I consider to have been one of the most statesmanlike speeches delivered in this House, the speech delivered by the leader of the Democratic Party (Mr William Tan). It may not have been enlightening to people who are Malayans, but I know that the debates which took place here on Friday and today have been an eye-opener to Mr Sutherland and his ilk.

I know, Sir, that I went to England in the dreadful time of November, suffering its cold and its damp and influenza virus, because at that time I said it was vital that we should counteract the propaganda of the Progressive Party, which has convinced Whitehall that the people of this colony do not want self-government, and I was going to seek to make contacts and do the little bit I could. It was only a little bit, Sir, but I think what was said on Friday and today should convince all, except those who are intentionally blind, of our deep, earnest and urgent desire for self-government. The Governor has appointed, Sir, the gentleman for Tanglin Club by name. Mr Sutherland - although I appealed to Malayans as a Malayan - saw fit, at the earliest opportunity, the moment the question was put, to intervene in this debate. He has the legal right. He saw fit to intervene, and he proceeded by stating that the first paragraph was self-evident - of course, Singapore wanted self-government - and he promptly proceeded to tell us that his many Asian friends had told him that really nobody wanted self-government. That is known as commercial logic, Sir, the logic that makes a faith, a religion, a way of life based on the motto "Heads I win, tails you lose." He suggested that before we run we should crawl -

Mr Sutherland: Walk!

The Chief Minister: He said, "crawl".

Mr Sutherland: Crawl before walk, not run. [Interruption.]

The Chief Minister: In one of the most unfortunate speeches I have heard in this House, and, with respect, Sir, to the Standing Orders, one which reflects no credit to the community in whose name it is made, the hon. Member has suggested that we should crawl before we walk. I would like to say this to him, Sir: Before he and his ilk get us to crawl again, neither he nor the Tanglin Club, for which he stands, nor anything for which it stands, will ever exist.

Mr Sutherland: On a point of order, Sir. What does he mean by a "member of Tanglin Club"? That is a very extraordinary thing to say! Could I have that withdrawn, Sir?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Are you ashamed of the Tanglin Club? -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Mr Chief Minister, objection has been taken to the expression "Member of Tanglin Club". [Interruption.] I will not have any frivolity. I ask you, Mr Chief Minister, to withdraw that expression as being offensive.

The Chief Minister: May it please you, Sir, the Member styled himself as member for expatriate Europeans. What I say stands.

Now, Sir, we then have had the hon. Mr. Ong Piah Teng. For one frightening moment, I thought he was going to follow the commercial logic of his colleague in the banking world. I am glad he stood up and spoke as a man of honour and as a Malayan, and I salute him.

Sir, there is only a simple question involved in this debate - whether the constitution should be constitutionally interpreted, no more, no less. Even His Excellency, in his message, never suggested that an amendment was necessary. All that he says is that what I ask of him is tantamount to an amendment, but, in point of fact, there is no need for any amendment at all of the constitution. I merely ask that it be interpreted in a spirit of goodwill, in a spirit that takes into account the needs of the people and seeks to meet those needs in a proper fashion.

The Member for Stamford (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) put it somewhat neatly when he said that I did not come here to make a mountain out of a molehill, but not even expecting a molehill, I suddenly found myself slap against a mountain. It is not just section 32. There are many other sections in this constitution where the Governor has to consult me, and the whole thing meshes with this very important issue: are we to have self-government as rapidly as we are capable of achieving it, or are we going to have an interpretation which seeks to hinder, obstruct and delay self-government?

There are in this House twenty-eight Malayans. I am going to ask for a division, Sir, whatever we voice. I should like on this occasion, perhaps the first historic debate of this Assembly, that we should stand and be counted on the record for ever. As a Malayan, it is my hope that, irrespective of personal animosities and antagonisms, irrespective of party politics, we will all stand together in this assertion of our need for self-government, for the transfer of powers in an orderly manner to the people, and for an interpretation compatible with the most rapid self-government possible. I say to you fellow Malayans in this House that it is my hope, it will be my privilege to stand side by side with whomsoever wishes to stand by me. I will disdain no vote. I will look down upon no man, however much he may dislike me, who comes to the assistance of the people of this country today in supporting a motion that has nothing personal, nothing political, and nothing party about it. It is a motion that speaks for the people. I want twenty-eight voices raised in a solid solemn "Aye" that will penetrate not only Government House, but the heart of Whitehall.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 1; Abstentions, 3. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Sutherland, G. A. P. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Abstentions Ede, John. Davies, E. J. Goh Chew Chua. Goode, W. A. C. Goh Tong Liang. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy. J. M. Jumabhoy, R. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. 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. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Resolved,

That the Speaker do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of this House that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves through their elected representatives;

And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people it the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, should be adopted;

And that where the Governor is required by the provisions of the said Order in Council to consult with the Chief Minister before taking any action, he should act in accordance with such advice;

And that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for a transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore, that a new Constitution providing for self-government should be granted immediately, and that such view be conveyed by His Excellency the Governor to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies;

And that the Speaker do report back to this House on the reply he receives from His Excellency the Governor to this message, and that thereafter this Assembly do take such action on motions without notice as the circumstances may require.

The Chief Minister: Now, you know what the people of Malaya think.

Mr Speaker: Order, please. I am now required, hon. Members, to convey the resolution to His Excellency the Governor. I propose to suspend the sitting for about ten minutes. I will try to communicate with Government House and see what can be done. I will take the Chair again at 12.15 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.03 p.m. until 12.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 12.15 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members will wish to know that His Excellency has been pleased to grant me an audience at half-past two today. My power of suspending the sitting is only limited to three hours. That would take us to 3.15 p.m. I do not think there is time for a message to be received from His Excellency between half-past two and 3.15. Would a Minister move that we adjourn, say, until about 3.45 or 4, if it is the wish of the sitting that that should be so? On the other hand, hon. Members may think that I could report back tomorrow morning. I leave it entirely to hon. Members.

The Chief Minister: May it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I respectfully request, under the provisions of Standing Order 71, that the Standing Orders be suspended in order to enable this House to consider the Question. "That the House do adjourn to 3.45 p.m. today."

Mr Speaker: Have I the assent of hon. Members that that should be so?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: Will you make the proposition, Mr Chief Minister?

The Chief Minister: May it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That this sitting be suspended until 3.45 p.m. today.

For this purpose, I am quite willing, naturally, to take the feelings of the House entirely freely. I am prepared to change my mind, but the way I see things is that we may wish to consider the message received from His Excellency before we proceed with the last part of the motion, and it would give us time if, after the message is delivered, we were then to adjourn till tomorrow morning, Sir. It would give us time to consider the necessary action; whereas if we were to adjourn now till tomorrow morning, we might be taken by surprise by some aspects of the message, and we might not be quite prepared for the issues that might be indicated. In the circumstances, I would respectfully suggest that it is preferable that the message be delivered to us at 3.45 p.m. today, if possible. Sir.

Mr Braga: I second it.

Mr Speaker: The first Question, of course, is,

"That Standing Orders be suspended."

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The next Question is,

"That this sitting be suspended until 3.45 p.m."

Question put, and agreed to.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.20 p.m. until 3.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 3.45 p.m.