SINGAPORE COLONY ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1955, (INTERPRETATION) (Message from the Governor)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, I have a message from His Excellency the Governor dated the 18th August, 1955. This is the message:

"In my message to the Legislative Assembly of the 2nd August, 1955, I said that I hoped to be able on the 18th August, 1955, to send a substantive reply to the Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly on 25th July, 1955.

I am happy to be able to inform the Assembly that, since the return to Singapore of the Secretary of State last Monday further discussions have been held between him, the Chief Minister, the Ministers and myself, as a result of which the constitutional issue arising over the exercise of the Governor's discretionary powers has been resolved.

Her Majesty's Government, while upholding the interpretation placed by me on those sections of the Singapore Order in Council, 1955, which empower the Governor to act after consultation with the Chief Minister, has considered representations made by the Chief Minister and has also taken into account my own view that it is preferable, at this stage of Singapore's constitutional progress, if the present legal requirements connected with the exercise of the Governor's discretionary powers after consultation with the Chief Minister are modified in certain respects.

Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government has undertaken to give me forthwith, through the Secretary of State, as provided in Section 7 of the Singapore Order in Council, 1955, Instructions that wherever in the Order in Council and in the Royal Instructions, with the exception noted later in this message, the Governor is empowered to act after consultation with the Chief Minister. I shall act in accordance with the Chief Minister's advice.

These Instructions do not apply to Section 67 (1) of the Order in Council, which provides for the prorogation and dissolution of the Assembly.

Finally, in regard to constitutional matters, including the fourth point in the Resolution of the 25th July, I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government will be glad to welcome to London at a suitable date a representative delegation from Singapore to consider the situation in the light of a year's working of the constitution."

That is the message. I have copies made, and they will be distributed now.

Copies of the Governor's message distributed to hon. Members.

The Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very important message, and I know hon. Members will wish to study it before proceeding further. May I crave your indulgence, Sir, to suspend the sitting for, say, 20 minutes? I understand that is suitable to the other leaders.

Mr Speaker: I think it is a proper occasion where I should suspend this sitting for about half an hour. I will take the Chair again at 10.30 a.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 10.05 a.m. until 10.30 a.m. Sitting resumed at 10.30 a.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the House would be obliged if the Hon. the Chief Minister could give us a statement on what meaning this message from His Excellency conveys to his Government. I think it is important, before we discuss any motion arising out of this message that we should know what the person, who has been negotiating for this message, understands it to mean.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed my intention to give all the facts that I can to hon. Members, and I intend to make it, Sir, in the course of my address to you which will culminate, I hope, in a motion that this House may find acceptable.

Sir, to me, as I see it, this is indeed a happy day for the people of Singapore. It marks the end of the first phase of our struggle for freedom. It marks the beginning of a new era. The present constitution infused by the spirit of this message, which you have read, marks, if I may use the Royal phrase, "a significant advance" in our constitutional development.

Recently I read in a Nanyang Siang Pao editorial, which advised patience in this constitutional crisis, a delightful phrase. It said, "He who soweth abundantly shall also reap abundantly." Sir, today's harvest is a goodly one. In so far as this message deals with the constitutional issues, the victory is the people's - a complete, a clean and an exhilarating victory!

The most understanding summary of these issues that I have read I saw in the Times of India published in Delhi on 1st August, 1955, and with your permission, Sir, I should like to read just two paragraphs from it:

"The constitutional crisis is not, as has been made out, merely a somewhat exaggerated reaction of the Governor's insistence on his discretion to accept or reject the Chief Minister's advice and recommendations. It is not merely an unseemly squabble over the question of whether there should or should not be four Under-Secretaries. More fundamental principles are involved, and an obsession with constitutional legalities has tended to obscure the force and extent of nationalist sentiment. As Mr Marshall has pointed out, in the present condition of rapid development in every part of Asia towards self-government, the British Government is under a moral, if not a constitutional, obligation to adopt 'the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of elected representatives of the people'. Where the Governor enjoys discretionary powers, these powers should obviously be exercised, wherever possible, in accordance with the wishes of the elected representatives. It is on this basic issue that considerable resentment has been aroused, and the reality of this resentment cannot be evaded by insisting on legal and constitutional rights.

The Governor's recent intimation that in the view of the British Government the Singapore constitution provides for slow rather than rapid progress towards self-government was completely out of joint with the sentiment of the times, and confounded those who had hoped that the present constitution was a framework within which encouraging strides could be made in the direction of early independence."

Sir, in the message that we have before us lies that assurance, in the words of this editorial writer, 'that the present constitution is a framework within which encouraging strides can be made in the direction of early independence'.

We based our request, as you will remember, on two grounds when approaching His Excellency.

Firstly, that the interpretation proposed by us is the legal constitutional interpretation; and secondly, that in any event it was an untenable position that we, who had to shoulder the responsibilities, should have inadequate powers to meet those responsibilities.

The answer we have today, Sir, is in effect this: we are wrong in our legal interpretation, but in the light of the people's needs, and in view of the sense of responsibility already shown by the people's representatives, Her Majesty's Government cedes the point and accepts our interpretation, even though the legal justification is missing. This is significant. We have asked for a spirit of goodwill. We have asked for a spirit of co-operation in interpreting the constitution so as to make it workable. Since Her Majesty's Government denies the legal justification for our request, the concession granted in this message gives concrete expression of a spirit of goodwill and a desire to co-operate that is truly warming and encouraging. Not only as a harassed Chief Minister, but as a citizen, I am deeply appreciative of the action of the Secretary of State as indicated in this message. I am also happy to say that I have established relations of mutual confidence with him, which may, to some extent, have assisted in the decision he has taken.

Sir, there is an exception in this message, the exception of section 67 (1), but I trust that hon. Members will not be distracted from a realisation of the extent of the co-operation received and the goodwill shown because of this exception. If the section is read, and carefully re-read, it will be seen that whichever way it is interpreted, whether according to my interpretation or to the Colonial Office interpretation, the practical results are absolutely identical. The procedure is a little different, but the results are identical, and I am quite happy to accept this exception, which, in any event, merely formalises what is the position in the United Kingdom.

I am not prepared to go so far, Sir, as another Member of this House, who told me that we have, by this message, achieved within four months the complete internal self-government which I had promised to work for under the old apple tree, within four years. Nor am I prepared to accept the suggestion that the only veto power left to the Governor is the power to dismiss me. We are a far cry yet, certainly, from complete internal self-government. At the same time there is no need to minimise the fact that today, by virtue of the new spirit that moves this constitution without any amendment, we have very substantial power, and the welfare of this territory is, to an appreciable extent, in our hands and in the hands of the civil servants who have to execute our policies. It is not merely that irritating controls have been removed. It is rather, Sir, that there has grown a new and wholesome relationship of mutual respect between Her Majesty's representative and the people's representatives. I am aware that I have been accused of being unsporting in wishing a crisis on His Excellency within three weeks of his arrival. I did not wish it on him, but on the principle, Sir, that the tone of a marriage is set on the wedding night, I am very happy that it did happen.

I am glad, because on present indications, my colleagues on the Front Bench and I have every reason to look forward to an era of fruitful and friendly co-operation with His Excellency.

I do not think that there can be any person, however ill-intentioned, who, reading this message, would not but admit, particularly when recognising the fact that the Secretary of State and His Excellency are sincerely of the opinion that there is no legal justification for this interpretation, that in so far as the original issues are concerned, this is a most generous concession; and I am not ashamed to say that I am grateful for this attitude, this display of goodwill by the Colonial Office.

We now come, Sir, to the second part of this message. It arises, if you will remember, from an amendment to the original motion inspired by the truly remarkable gentlemen who were called this morning by one of the newspapers the "Progressional Party". I understand, Sir, that that is a marriage between the Progressives and professionals. Now, you will remember, Sir, that on the Friday, the original day of the debate, these honourable, these truly remarkable gentlemen warned this House of the dreadful disaster that would follow upon any increase of the Chief Minister's powers; but seeing that no one heeded, such was their burning love for me and their ardent desire to see that I was not further burdened with greater powers, that they were prepared to throw political integrity overboard and came forward with a motion which, according to their own representatives, was calculated to make it impossible for the Secretary of State to pay any respectful attention to, and in this way they hoped to save the people from the dire consequences of an increase of the Chief Minister's powers.

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Chief Minister seems to be very near imputing improper motives to Members of this House. Will he please be more "choosy" with his words?

The Chief Minister: I am indeed indebted to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have very carefully considered my words. I know, Sir that at times I feel with such truly remarkable gentlemen - exceptional should be the word - that we should have exceptional rules! But I have been careful, and I have only imputed to them, Sir, a desire to save the country from the chaos of increasing my powers by a particularly clever political manoeuvre. Nothing more than that!

Sir, what the "Progressional Party" did not know was that I had weeks ago asked, when I learned that the Secretary of State was coming to Singapore, that an item be placed on the agenda, and that item was a discussion for the fixing of a date for complete internal self-government. That item was already on the agenda; and by changing just one word in their very clever amendment, the result was that this House gave such a remarkable demonstration of the urge of the people for freedom that, far from handicapping me, I was strengthened, not only in my original motion but in broaching the question of fixing a date for complete internal self-government.

Now, on that aspect, Sir, today's reply is not all that anyone of us could wish, barring the hon. Mr Sutherland. But looking at the background against which this message is given, I consider it an appreciable concession. I believe I know the mentality of the Colonial Office. Yes, to it haste is something indecent. Every time it takes a step forward, it looks to see that the foot is firmly planted, and it is unquestionably notoriously allergic to time-tables and fixing dates for independence, or even self-government! Against that background, Sir, and we have to acknowledge its existence; we must judge the assurance given that our request for immediate self-government will be considered within the next nine months. I want no misunderstanding on this, and it may well be that this is the clarification that is being sought; but I made it quite clear to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that when we do go to England - and, Sir, if I may, for a moment, go off at a tangent here - it is my intention that the delegation should be not merely a coalition delegation, because to me our self-government is not a question of party politics, but I intend to invite some of these 'fire-eating tough guys', if I may use the phrase, from the opposite Benches to join us. When we do go to England within nine months, the very first item on the agenda is going to be the question of a date for complete internal self-government.

As a lawyer, Sir, I am conscious that the framing of the last paragraph can be said to leave a very wide loophole to Her Majesty's Government should its intention be a Machiavellian one; and that, in fact, if we are to go to England next spring it can be said to us, "Well, you have been so inept in your government" - (whether we have been inept or no) - "that it is absurd to consider the question of giving you complete self-government, and there the matter can rest." I will say this, Sir, that I would consider it regrettable that there should be this suggestion of putting us on trial, as it were, to prove ourselves worthy of freedom. A man has a right to freedom in the same way that he has a right to walk straight, and we walk straight, by the grace of God and thanks to nobody.

In a perfect world, Sir, there would be no question of domination of a people, nor any question of exploitation of a people. But I am a practical person, as I hope are all hon. Members who are representatives of the people in this Assembly. I recognise that we are not in a perfect world. I recognise that the British people have considerable interests in this territory that are vital to their own welfare - military interests, Sir, as well as commercial interests - but, if I may, Sir, I think it might be helpful if I were just to read a short paragraph from the Economist of the 6th of this month to give an idea of the feeling that they have about what is transpiring in this territory:

"It was never expected under either the Malayan or the Singapore constitution that self-government would come anything but gradually, and it was assumed that the process of achieving it would destroy support for Communism in both countries. But, in fact, the very first elections to be held and the entry into office of the first locally-elected Government have been the signal for a claim that the process shall be completed at once, that its transitional stages are unworkable. The newly-elected Members see themselves as constituting national assemblies of impatient, sovereign peoples rather than parliaments-in-training," - and this is the rub, Sir - "and yet it is far from certain that Communism could not rapidly undermine both countries."

Sir, there is genuine anxiety - and not only abroad - about our ability to maintain a stable democratic government in the face of the strong interest shown by international Communism in this strategic area. I believe the Colonial Office recognises that we are sincere in abhorring the thought of being a satellite of Moscow or Peking on the one hand, or even of London on the other. But it is our internal administration, which they wish to see stable before they give us this complete power. It is seriously suggested, Sir, that if our internal administration is ineffective, we could make it impossible to hold this territory for democracy. I and, I know, my colleagues and those who know Singapore well are confident that we can maintain an efficient administration and achieve worthwhile progress, and because of this confidence, I say if we have to wait nine months, we can wait nine months. Quite apart from anything else, Sir, we have no option - let us face it as practical people - and even if we have the option, even if we had all hell's armoury, I would prefer the peaceful process of waiting nine months. The suggestion of being put on trial irks our pride, but if humility for nine months will gain us a date for freedom, I can and will swallow my pride and wait.

I accept the good faith of the assurance given us today. It is in our hands, Sir, to act soberly and within nine months to bring home the Holy Grail. I believe the people of this country would wish us to be patient and would wish us to recognise generously the solid achievements of today as embodied in this message. It is in this spirit, Sir, that I move,

That Mr Speaker do express to His Excellency the Governor our appreciation of his message, and request that His Excellency, on our behalf, should thank Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for his sympathetic approach to our aspirations.

Sir, I have handed copies of this motion to two of the leaders opposite. I hand a copy to the Clerk.

Copy of the Chief Minister's motion handed in.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion of thanks to His Excellency by the Chief Minister.

In doing so, I would like to say that the Coalition Government's request, as contained in our Resolution, has been completely satisfied.

With regard to the amended Resolution put in by the Progressive Party, we are prepared to accept in good faith that our delegates to meet Her Majesty's Government to discuss the Resolution will also result to our satisfaction.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have received the Governor's message this morning. Our Chief Minister has had the good fortune of meeting the Governor and other important people from London for the last few days and has had all that put to him. But the Members of this Assembly only received it this morning. The man in the street will not be able to read it until the papers have published it.

I believe that this is a matter, which is very important to Singapore. I believe that all political Parties should be consulted and their opinions aired. Therefore, Sir, I feel that, instead of going on with this motion, we should adjourn it for a day for public opinion to be aired.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion that we adjourn for one day to consider His Excellency's reply given to us this morning. The Government -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. As I understand it, there is no motion for adjournment before the House. If the hon. Member cares to move that motion, then, of course, he can proceed.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) is moving that.

Mr Lim Choon Mong rose

Mr Speaker: You have spoken, Mr Lim Choon Mong.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems the unique role of the People's Action Party to come to the rescue of one Party after another. If I may be of some assistance to my friend on the right-hand side of my side of the House, may I formally move, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this House do adjourn till tomorrow morning for further business?

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I formulate that motion in writing, may I say that-

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Under the Standing Orders, no Member can move the adjournment of this House except a Minister.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be obliged if you would refer me to the relevant section of the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker: No. 17.

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, if no one wishes to speak, can we proceed with the business of the motion?

Mr Speaker: Would the Chief Minister mind if I give the Opposition time to consider this question?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer you to Standing Order 21, paragraph 3:

"Unless Standing Orders otherwise direct, notice shall be given of any motion which it is proposed to move with the exception of the following: -

A motion for the adjournment of the Assembly or of any debate."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion which I wish to put forward is that this debate on the motion introduced by the Chief Minister, and seconded by the Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam), be adjourned till tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Mr Speaker: Can I have that in writing?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the debate on the motion moved by the Chief Minister be adjourned to 10 a.m. tomorrow, 19th August, 1955.

Motion handed in.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir-

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Can I consider this? I take it that the hon. Member is moving his motion under Standing Order 20?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed, yes, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In that case, will the hon. Member reconsider this motion of his? I think it will be in order if he just moves that the debate on the motion moved by the Chief Minister be adjourned. The date will then be fixed by the Member in charge if that motion is accepted.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. I move,

That the debate on the motion moved by the Chief Minister be adjourned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side of the House, and indeed many on the other side of the House, did not have the advantage - I am almost inclined to say the privilege - of having been consulted on the reply that was sent to us this morning.

I venture to suggest that a considerable degree of meticulous care and attention has gone into the framing of this message, and I feel we should do it the courtesy of giving it equally meticulous scrutiny and attention.

Sir, we have had the advantage now of hearing the explanation given by the Chief Minister as to what he understands this message to mean. At a glance, I would agree with him that, so far as the Rendel Constitution is concerned, we now have the Marshall version of the Rendel Constitution. It is a completely different one from the C. C. Tan version; unfortunately, the person for whom it was tailored was not fortunate enough to receive the applause and to warm the seat that was prepared for him. How much this reply really means, and in particular what that last passage in this reply really signifies, is a matter which deserves more careful consideration. I agree with the Chief Minister that those first few paragraphs, relating to the exercise of the Governor's discretion when he has to consult his Chief Minister, do mean a considerable concession - I would not myself like to use the word capitulation. However, I would suggest to him that it was not humility that obtained that capitulation, as the Chief Minister perhaps would now like to imagine.

But may I refer to the last passage which reads:

"Finally, in regard to constitutional matters, including the fourth point in the Resolution of the 25th July, I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government will be glad to welcome to London at a suitable date a representative delegation from Singapore to consider the situation in the light of a year's working of the constitution."

Sir, many of us may have forgotten the actual words of the fourth point in the Resolution. I think it might be useful if we were to refer to it briefly now. It was in these terms:

"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;".

To that we have received a careful reply clouded with calculated ambiguity. There is no admission that Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies acknowledges and encourages this ardent desire, which we, as the people's representatives, have expressed on that last occasion. In fact, as I understand the Chief Minister to say, he understands it to mean that in nine months' time-

The Chief Minister rose --

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Chief Minister?

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would enquire whether the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) is rather speaking against the motion than in favour of the amendment?

Mr Speaker: I gather, Mr Chief Minister, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is explaining why he wants an adjournment.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was trying to explain the difficulties which I am now encountering. My colleagues on this side of the House, not necessarily my comrades-in-arms, are at present considering this message. This is not a trifling matter to be treated in a frivolous fashion. A message has been delivered, if I may say so, after the greatest circumspection and care, after roughly a month from the time when the crisis first arose. If nothing else, we should give it the courtesy of very careful scrutiny and decide what it actually means before we go into whoops of jubilation, and ask you again, Mr Speaker, to convey a message of our appreciation to His Excellency, and to thank Her Majesty's Secretary of State. We shall be falling over backwards in no time at the rate we are going! Let us know where we are going first. It is not a matter, which should be rushed. I myself would have been prepared, if the Chief Minister so wishes, to go on this afternoon, after having an opportunity to consult not only my colleagues in this House, but my Party officials who have very strong views as to what their representatives do on important matters of this nature.

We take a stand. We do not express just our personal likes and dislikes, and personal inclinations and animosities, and it is important that the message should receive its due consideration.

May I remind the Chief Minister that not so very long ago in this House he was bewildered and perplexed at the very short, simple interim message that was received from the Governor on that occasion? If I could just quote him on that occasion, he said, immediately after you, Mr Speaker, had delivered the Governor's interim reply:

"Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some difficulty in understanding the message, and with respect, before we do adjourn, I would like, if possible, to clarify the position."

May I say, in not exactly the same words, that we also have a certain difficulty in appreciating the significance of this message, and that we are in the position he was then, of not sharing the Governor's confidence before the message was delivered. On that occasion I think it was a much more attentive Chief Minister who waited for your words and who was wondering 'Whither are we going after this?' If we are rushed into this motion, then we, on this side of the House, might well make a wrong decision, or commit ourselves to some statement of policy to which we may at some later date wish we had never committed ourselves. I think it is not altogether wise to treat the Opposition, now that the Chief Minister is assured of his majority, in this fashion. We, who have a more disinterested view of these matters, would like more care and deliberation before we commit ourselves. I would say -

The Chief Minister: To say 'Thank you'.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is important how we say, 'Thank you', just as it is important to the Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd, to say, not, 'I will receive you in spring and will talk about self-government, and I am sure you will be very pleased with it all'; but to say in a most carefully formulated piece: 'I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government will be glad to welcome to London at a suitable date a representative delegation from Singapore,' - what for? - 'to consider the situation in the light of a year's working of the constitution.' Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister understands that to mean that for one year we should, in his own words, accept the position with humility, and humility will bring us success. We must accept the position that we have no choice but to behave ourselves for one year. We are on trial, and when the hon. Mr Sutherland is pleased with our behaviour and is pleased to communicate his pleasure at our good conduct to his friends in Whitehall, then we shall proceed further.

Sir, that is a position that no self-respecting Malayan can accept. I am sure the Chief Minister would like us to consider carefully the extent of the qualification which has been so carefully hedged round this message before we tell you, Mr Speaker, Sir, again to run an errand for us to Government House and ask the Governor again to run an errand for us in delivering a message to the right honourable gentleman who has been so kind to visit us so shortly after he came into office.

But we must not forget how that fourth part of the Resolution came to be introduced into the Chief Minister's motion on that last occasion - he had tried to explain it earlier this morning - that it was quite accidental. It seems to me that all the things in this House happen accidentally because so little thought is given to them beforehand. Four junior Ministers, and we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis! We get a mad Party that does a double somersault, and lo and behold, we are on the threshold of immediate independence! From immediate independence, the Chief Minister at once said immediate self-government! From immediate self-government, we are to thank the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for taking us one step back. We are to thank him for asking us to go to London next year, at some indefinite date, to talk things over! Not to talk about immediate self-government, but 'to consider the situation in the light of a year's working of the constitution.'

The Chief Minister: Read the whole paragraph!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: 'To consider the situation-'

The Chief Minister: Read the whole paragraph!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed I will, Mr Speaker, Sir. 'Finally, in regard to constitutional matters, including the fourth point in the Resolution of the 25th July, I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government will be glad to welcome to London at a suitable date a representative delegation from Singapore to consider the situation...' What situation? Perhaps we may have changed our minds by then! We may want self-government in ten years' time! But let us remember this: that we are a serious deliberative Assembly, and although things may happen - indeed so many things have happened fortuitously - when we have passed a Resolution, it is not to be discarded lightly. Progressive Party Members on this side of the House had said, "We want immediate independence." Then, no doubt like the P.A.P., for the sake of seeking common ground with all the other political Parties that were not prepared to go as far as they would go, they reluctantly accepted a step backward to immediate self-government. We all joined in on that common ground. So far as the people of Singapore were concerned, we took that step because we understood exactly how they felt and what they would have done to us if we had flouted their wishes and gone back to meet them. That Resolution, whatever its origins, was passed after careful deliberation. Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, on that occasion I tried my very best to prevent a hasty amendment to that Resolution. I failed then. I sincerely hope that I will not fail today in preventing a hasty discussion of this motion. I am confident that I have the support of all those in this House who would not wish to be used, as someone has said it, as a rubber-stamp to this motion. Although I myself would have been prepared to go on with this motion this afternoon after consulting with my colleagues on the actual wording of this last paragraph, speaking for my friends on this side of the House, if this motion is proceeded with today, we on this side of the House will take no part in the proceedings. I hope Members on my side of the House will leave the Hon. the Chief Minister in no doubt that on this occasion I am speaking for all of them.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion just moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) for an adjournment until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.

Mr Speaker: Order, please. It is not till tomorrow morning. It is just adjournment.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Adjournment, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, twenty-five elected voices in this Assembly passed a motion that self-government should be granted immediately, to which we have received a reply, which is of great importance.

This reply has been considered by the Chief Minister and his Party, but we have had no opportunity yet to consider it. I am myself an Independent, but we have got political Parties on this side of the House and, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said, they have to consult their Parties, and it is a very fair request that this should be adjourned.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): I am astonished, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the very low and degraded opinion which the Opposition apparently have of themselves. I cannot accept their views and I cannot understand their almost unanimous endeavour to adjourn, on the grounds that they cannot understand a very simple form of words for which a very detailed explanation has been given by the Chief Minister. I do not think there is anything in that at all. They do understand perfectly well: there is nothing they can possibly misunderstand. There is no interpretation which they can possibly add to this by days, weeks or months of further thought. The interpretation remains precisely the same as it has been outlined already. They cannot go beyond it except by possibly getting the Secretary of State to talk to them.

What lies behind this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is very much more serious. It is not incompetence or lack of intellect in the Opposition that we have to face, but a complete misunderstanding of democracy. They apparently intend to run back to their Parties. They are the elected representatives. I am not - I am nominated. But they, the elected representatives, have not got the courage or the conviction of their own ability to make a decision. They have got to go back. They have got to hear what the Straits Times says, or the Sin Pao says! They have got to see what Raffles Place or what Middle Road has to say! And then they will come back to us and say, 'Yes, we have now, as democratic representatives, made up our minds.' I say that they must make up their minds for themselves, without reference to people outside this Assembly, and I say that with full conviction that that is the democratic principle. They are elected to represent the people, but they are not elected to go running back to individuals and pressure groups to seek support for doing what they know in their own conscience is right.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see any reason for such violent accusations on the part of the Front, although we, the four of us here, are not in complete agreement with most of what the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said just now.

We are only asking for a little time to consider this very important reply from His Excellency the Governor. We are unable to understand why, if the Government side has been postponing the business of this House for days and weeks, there should be so much antagonism when we ask for 24 hours to consider this very important step in the progress of this country.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): , Mr Speaker, Sir, I am convinced that this reply from His Excellency the Governor would satisfy the constituents in my division. I feel that we will not be able to get any further clarification from Her Majesty's Government.

Nevertheless, since Members of the various political Parties have the responsibility to seek advice before they can debate this motion, I cannot see any objection why this debate cannot be adjourned. I hope and believe that the Government would extend an olive branch to the Opposition and give them an opportunity to express whatever they want to express on this debate.

I see no reason why any Member of the Government should lose his temper over this matter of adjournment. We should ourselves feel that we are matured politicians, and I think Members of the Government, as well as the Opposition, should deliberate on this matter with maturity.

Sir, in the hope and belief that the Government would agree to an adjournment, I resume my seat with a request once again that the Government should not lose its temper over this issue. They are not going to lose anything by adjourning this motion.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very deeply surprised to hear the attack launched at us by the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas). It is very well for him to stand up and say that he need not go back and consult his Party, because he is only a nominated Member of the Assembly. But we are the elected representatives of the people, and we have to consult our people because-

Mr Thomas rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Thomas?

Mr Francis Thomas: Point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, the hon. Member has misunderstood what I have said. I would like to clarify it. [Interruption.] The point I wish to make was this: that an elected representative is elected on a platform and he carries it out; but how he carries it out is not to be decided by reference back to the backseat drivers. This was established in the 18th century by Edmund Burke when he was the Member for Bristol. He very clearly laid it down to his electors that if they elected him, they showed their confidence in him, and he was not going to run back and ask them, 'What shall I do about this or that?' But rather, 'I shall do what in my judgment is right.' To hand over your judgment, gentlemen of the Opposition, to the backseat drivers is, in my view - and I am saying this without any loss of temper but I wish to say it with all vehemence because it is not a trifling matter - a most dangerous infringement of the principles of democracy. You cannot hand over your judgment to the backseat drivers. You must take responsibility yourselves. To go back to somebody behind and say, 'What shall I do?', that is a complete dereliction from your true duty as elected representatives.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very well for him to say that he need not go back because he has already had news of the contents-

The Chief Minister: He has not!

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Mr Tan, please continue.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not surprised that the hon. Members on the opposite Bench have already been told of the reply which the Chief Minister received from His Excellency the Governor, and they have already consulted each other. It is well and good for them to come here today -

The Chief Minister: On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Ministers received, in common with all other Members, information of this message when copies of it were handed to them this morning.

Mr William Tan: - and it is only fair that we should have more time to consider the reply we have received.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all will agree with me that everyone in his right senses will not refuse a request for an adjournment if good reasons are set out for such a request. I believe, and I think I know, that Members on this side of the House are all in their right senses, and we cannot see any good reason for a request for an adjournment.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar in his speech made it quite clear that he understood even the last paragraph of His Excellency's message. The only reason left, therefore, for this adjournment is for some Members on the opposite side to consult the persons who put them into this House. The Minister for Communications and Works has made it quite clear that it would be unparliamentary for them to go back to these people and say, 'Look here, we are faced with this problem. What is your opinion on this?' It only shows the lack of confidence in themselves.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, at long last I can now heave a sigh of relief that the unholy marriage between the P.A.P. and the Coalition Government is no more! I am indeed very glad because that was a very dangerous marriage, and now the P.A.P. wants to enter into another marriage, a marriage with somebody whom they have described in the most bitterest of terms!

Some Members over the other side say they want an adjournment in order to consult their Parties, their constituents, and maybe the people who have been guiding them. Yet, when the Progressive Party moved an amendment which has now become the famous fourth point in the Resolution, they did not say, 'Wait, Mr Speaker, this is a very big issue. The Progressives want independence.' The Chief Minister being, as described by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, a political innocent, moved an amendment for immediate self-government. The Progressives then did not raise their hands in horror and say, 'Mr Speaker, Sir, please, we must have time to go back and consult our Party! Please, we must have time to go back and consult our constituents!' They did not do that! Why should they want to do it now, Sir, over this issue of an expression of thanks for a message that has been delivered? Of course, they say that the fourth part has nothing definite. Surely, Sir, in our right senses it has never been anticipated by any of us that we could get a definite yes or no today? An answer can only be given after consultation. Where is the consultation to take place, Sir? It has to take place in London. With whom, Sir? Not with us, but with all of us! Is that not enough? Is not that answer sufficient? You must have consultation before you can get a definite answer from the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and yet we are threatened by the other side that unless we agree to an adjournment, they will not take part in the debate. We are not perturbed, Sir.

Now, Sir, the fourth point that has been the source of all this trouble. It was put into the Resolution by the Progressives. It started the trouble on 25th July. The trouble continued on 2nd August, and now the trouble is still with us today. I find it very difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the Progressives in moving that amendment. They opposed the original motion of the Chief Minister, and yet they suggested an amendment, which was intended to achieve something, which they never dreamed of. It was intended to go beyond what was meant to be achieved by the original motion of the Chief Minister. Yet today, when we have got satisfaction on the original motion of the Chief Minister, and also satisfaction in the sense that in regard to this fourth point we will be having consultations in London, leaving only the date to be fixed, they feel that they should want time to go and consider something about which they, I am sure, have already made up their minds. I oppose the motion.

The Chief Minister: It is distressing, Mr Speaker, Sir, that on a day which should be a day of joy for all Parties that are truly representative of the people, we should have a debate degenerating on a basis of party antagonisms and jockeying for political position. I have not looked at this victory as a victory of the Coalition Government. It is a great victory. I do not want to crow about it. I am grateful for it - a victory, I should have thought, that everybody would have joined happily in saying, 'Thank you' before I asked.

It is not true that hon. Members opposite have had no inkling of what was coming. The hon. and learned Member opposite, who did me the courtesy, as a true Malayan, of joining me in the original motion, I thought should have reciprocal courtesy, and I did indicate to him yesterday the identical terminology of the reply to the fourth point. The suggestion about having to consult Middle Road is an absurdity. This is a surrender of their duties as representatives of the people. This is done intentionally: it seeks to destroy the impression of what is a true achievement.

What they have before them is not difficult. The whole issue has been before this country and before this Assembly for almost a month. The reply is in simple language, and it is admitted - no one seems to have the courage to deny it, not even the Progressionals - that it is a complete vindication of our original stand and a complete acceptance of this House's request for a generous spirit of interpretation.

On the fourth issue, there is far more than we had thought of. Much less than we asked for, admittedly. But it is a step forward, a radical step forward, a healthy step forward. 'You come in spring and we will discuss it.' And in view of the spirit in which the other concession has been given, it is churlish to see mala fides in the phraseology. I understand, Sir, there is a disgraceful threat from hon. Members opposite who intend to abdicate their rights and responsibilities to this House by walking out if I refuse-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Definitely!

The Chief Minister: You can, Sir, I shall never miss you. I ask hon. Members opposite to have a sense of responsibility-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed we have!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Not the way you are talking!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

The Chief Minister: There is nothing in this motion, which is difficult to understand. Hon. Members opposite have had half an hour to look at it, to peruse it and to discuss it. I say, Sir that this ganging-up for an adjournment is unworthy of hon. Members. It is unworthy of the people of this Colony on a day that should be a day of rejoicing.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Is it unworthy to have time to think?

The Chief Minister: I ask you, Sir, to look at that motion which is simply an expression of thanks. One does not need time to think and to know whether one should say, 'Thank you.' One needs no time particularly when it is confessed - I use the word 'confessed', Sir, since the admission seems to have been extracted - that there has been a very generous gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government. All I say, Sir, is that I shall deeply regret an action which I believe must be construed abroad as showing a lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of a major section of the population if this threat of abdication-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Protest, not abdication!

The Chief Minister: - were to be carried out. There are democratic means of protest - the right to vote and the right to speak -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: And the right not to speak!

The Chief Minister: - and I ask them to reconsider and to admit frankly that there is not a single thing there that they do not understand. Apart from what may be the directionless Progressionals who may wish to get their directions abroad, hon. Members should have their own opinions and should have the courage to express them, without having outsiders to hold their hands. This is not a small issue, Sir. If it were, I would certainly cede. This is nothing but a manoeuvre.

Question, "That the debate on the motion moved by the Chief Minister be adjourned," put, and negatived.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Division, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that according to Standing Orders your claim for a division is a bit too late. The votes have been fully taken. Unless you can persuade me otherwise - I do not want to deprive you of the benefit of a division, but according to Standing Orders, once the vote has been fully taken, in other words, when I said 'The Noes have it', that was the end of it. If you had wanted a division, you had to claim it before I said 'The Noes have it'. I will give you time to think about that.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, if your decision is that I had interjected too late, then I will have to submit.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon a majority of the Members on the Opposition Benches left the Chamber.

Mr Francis Thomas: Now that, Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Members of the Opposition have sought to transfer this matter from the proper place of discussion to the back parlours and upstairs rooms that they will find elsewhere, it is proper that we should still continue to give our minds to it, and there are some things arising in connection with this debate which I should like to say.

It has been extremely significant to see the actions and hear the words of the Opposition and to see how very vigorous must be our struggle to maintain the principles of democracy and freedom. It is perfectly clear now that there are forces in Singapore, which are seeking to direct and control the Members of this House. It is not a question of a colonial power directing and controlling; it is a question of anonymous and hidden forces without which some Members of the House feel they cannot take a decision, and that is a situation, Mr Speaker, which will call for the most devoted efforts of all of us if we are to find a happy solution.

I see another sad thing. We have from the Secretary of State through the Governor a most welcome concession, a most welcome realisation of the feelings of the people and of the justice of our claims. It appears - and I am sorry that the Opposition have not remained here to make their position clear about it, but in their absence, I can only give the interpretation that seems to me to be the only possible interpretation - that some Members of the Opposition are unwilling to take the course of co-operation and goodwill. They seem to feel that unless a thing is achieved at great suffering by violent methods, by the shedding of blood, by death and agony - unless those methods are used, a real victory cannot be won.

It used to be a favourite saying of the extreme Left, of the Communists and their fellow-travellers, that "property will shoot", meaning that you may talk to your exploiters, you can get nice words from them, but when it comes to the real push, they will fight sooner than yield one inch to your demands. That phrase "property will shoot" was used again and again to justify the theories of violent revolution, and I have an unhappy feeling that that same idea is operating in the minds of some of the Opposition. They are unable to accept a gesture of goodwill; they are unable to believe that anybody can be trusted; they are unable to believe that the Secretary of State and the Government behind him and the British people behind them have any genuine willingness to concede the principle of self-government to us. They have no grounds for that disbelief: they have got example after example of the territories which have been granted full independence - India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon, Australia and Canada. We heard them all from the Commissioner-General in his birthday speech yesterday, but they cannot believe, in spite of that, that the same thing could happen here. Consequently, I very much fear that there will be people who may seek to prejudice this victory, to misrepresent it, to try to turn it into a means of strife and violence.

I wish to say this, Mr Speaker, because I am so profoundly convinced that in most situations, reason and good sense and perseverance can solve one's difficulties and that the desire for violence is a psychopathic desire which is not necessary for achieving a victory such as the Chief Minister has been able to bring to this House today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Mr Speaker do express to His Excellency the Governor our appreciation of his message, and request that His Excellency, on our behalf, should thank Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for his sympathetic approach to our aspirations.