PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Emergency Regulations and their use during the past few years have disturbed the conscience of many decent law-abiding citizens. We, as the people's first elected Government, in the policy speech by His Excellency the Governor on the first day of the sitting of this House, undertook to examine exhaustively "the Emergency Regulations with a view, in so far as is practicable, to dispensing with such powers as are no longer necessary and to the exercise of powers essential for the maintenance of law and order within the framework of normal legal procedure." We added, Sir, that "in considering this matter, regard will be had to all the factors involved, including the Emergency situation in the Federation of Malaya".

Now, Sir, although we outlined our policy with some caution, leaving ourselves room to retain such powers as confidential information which might be made available to us might indicate to be necessary, we were at that time - I will frankly confess - of the view that we could sweep away the entire structure of the Emergency Regulations without endangering the fabric of security of the people. That was the 22nd of April, 1955 - five months ago.

Shortly after His Excellency's speech, Sir, we watched efforts to fan and twist a perfectly legitimate trade dispute at the Hock Lee Bus Depot into an instrument for mob violence which exploded in the horrible riots and brutal murders of May 12th. That was our first introduction to the technique of a group of hardened persons, loyal to a foreign ideology of tyranny, who, without regard to human suffering, seek the creation of conditions of chaos and the violent overthrow of a democratic form of government, in order to bring the people of this territory under their control.

We next witnessed, not long after, another legitimate strike, this time at the Singapore Harbour Board, being twisted and tortured in an effort to repeat the success of the Hock Lee riots. Strenuous efforts were made to paralyse our economic life. It did not matter how much the pitiable, misled worker suffered, if only these malevolent organisers of chaos could succeed in their aim of overthrow of the Government by mob violence and the creation of conditions which would bring about the supremacy of their brand of ideological tyranny. But for the existence of some sincere trade unionists in the Trades Union Congress, in the Naval Base, and in the docks, there could have been an even greater holocaust than the Hock Lee riots.

Sir, a letter signed by the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) throws light on the conduct of these pseudo-trade unionists who organised the abortive illegal strikes - I repeat, illegal strikes - of last June. The letter was typed on the head-note of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, 149 Middle Road, Singapore, 7, dated 12th of June, 1955, addressed to the Manager, Singapore Cold Storage Company, Limited, Orchard Road, Singapore. In referring to the so-called sympathy strike of the workers of the Cold Storage, this is what it says:

"Sir,

This is to notify you that the action taken by our members is not directed against your Company but is taken in support of the common demands of fraternal unions presented to the Government in respect of detained unionists."

There we have, Sir, the naive admission by the Hon. Secretary - the name is Lim Ching Siong - the admission that the workers are made to suffer, not in pursuance of a trade dispute, but in order to blackmail the people's Government by mob coercion.

It is a technique, Sir, of the Communists throughout the world to infiltrate trade unions and to work ostensibly for the welfare of the labourer in order to gain his confidence. Then, when the time is considered ripe, they sacrifice him. The Malays, Sir, have a word for this type of pseudo-trade unionists. They call them "topengs".

One of the trade unionists at that time who was detained, the House will remember, was Yong Kok Kim, President of that very union of which the Member for Bukit Timah was and is the Hon. Secretary. The Communist Party aliases of Yong Kok Kim, as admitted by him, were Sang Swee Sen, Ah Yong and Yong Lim.

This, Sir, is what the Member for Bukit Timah had to say about the detention of Yong Kok Kim. I read from an article in the Straits Times of Monday, July 11, 1955, headlined "JAIL ME TOO, SAYS LIM". It is cheap to shout to the bushes that you are looking for wars when it is known full well that this Government does not arrest arbitrarily. Let us see what the statement was that the hon. Member issued. In a statement issued from the Union Headquarters in Middle Road, Mr Lim said:

"The abuse of power provided by the Emergency Regulations has once more been displayed by the arrest of Mr Yong Kok Kim."

Abuse of power, Sir.

"I", said Mr Lim, "share the same beliefs and have the same aims as Fong Swee Suan and Yong Kok Kim. I therefore challenge the Government to arrest me too".

Sir, that was July 11, 1955. On August 24, 1955, Mr Yong Kok Kim was convicted in an open court of law and sentenced to five years' imprisonment for terrorist activities.

Sir, in the light of this statement of the Member for Bukit Timah - that he shares the same aims and the same beliefs as this convicted man - and in the light of the statements he has seen fit to issue criticising the present Bill, in lurid language, I think it is pertinent to enquire and to ask him whether he speaks as a man loyal to the democratic process and to the people and territory of Singapore, or whether he speaks as a Communist and a fellow sympathiser of the Communists. That question was once before addressed to the hon. Member by the Hon. the Chief Secretary. It was evaded with the heavy-handed technique we know so well. He said, "I will not answer a colonial official." Now, I, Sir, who have the privilege today of standing here in this House as the chief of the people's representatives, ask him to declare himself, so that the people will know, when he speaks about this Bill, where he stands.

In our examination, Sir, of the Emergency Regulations, we studied voluminous memoranda. We received top-level representations from the Federation of Malaya, and I spent some time in the Special Branch and its departments examining documents, investigating procedure, looking at files, and talking to ex-terrorists.

At the outset, it is important that the hon. Members of this House should know of the representations from the Federation of Malaya. General Bourne, as Chief of Operations against the terrorists in the Federation, and the Defence Secretary of the Federation emphasised with the utmost gravity that any relaxation on the part of Singapore in its laws against Communism and Communists would mean a stab in the back to the Federation. They said we would make of Singapore a rest camp and a rearming centre for terrorists and would create a wide open door for them to pour into the Federation, so that in a matter of a few months the security position of the Federation could be jeopardised. To us, Sir, on this side of the House, and I hope to all in this House, the welfare of our brothers across the Straits is a matter of very real and immediate concern. If there was no other reason, that plea was sufficient in itself, Sir, for us to exercise the utmost vigilance for their protection. But that plea alone, the needs of the Federation alone, were not the sole reason, Sir, for this Bill. After what we believe to have been careful consideration - anxious consideration, Sir, on my part - in the light of the attitude with which I originally approached the whole problem, I am today satisfied that this law is essential for the protection of the people of this country and for its nascent democracy. It is the primary and supreme duty of a government to provide for the safety and security of its citizens.

Since 1948 there has existed in this territory, and to a very far larger extent in the Federation, a subversive organisation inspired by an ideology of tyranny and violence, which indulges in all the techniques of murder and intimidation, and seeks to overthrow the people's government of today, as it sought to overthrow the colonial government of yesterday. It does not matter to these people that if they were successful, they would bring ghastly misery and starvation to the whole population of Singapore. I ask this House to remember this: Singapore eats because it serves the free world. If Singapore were to become Communist, we would cut ourselves off from those whom we serve. We would be unable to earn our living, and as we produce nothing, we would starve miserably and suffer even more than we have suffered under the Japanese occupation. But that does not matter to these gentlemen of this international subversive organisation that seeks to bring us within the fold of their tyranny - these people who pretend to seek the welfare of the common man.

With such an organisation existing and constituting a real threat to our security and to the safety of individuals, the question remains, Sir: can Government protect its citizens; can Government protect the country by use of the normal process of the law? Justice in our Courts, Sir, is based on two fundamentals, as you are aware, and as some of my hon. Friends across the floor are aware. One is that the honest citizen, who is in the great majority of the population, 99 per cent, would be ready and willing to give the Police all information he has of any criminal activity. The second is that he would be ready to give freely of his knowledge on oath in open court. Unfortunately, Sir, as Members of this House are fully aware, this small but well-disciplined group of hard core terrorists has succeeded in a large measure in intimidating our population, so that few of them will volunteer information, and none of them will come to open court to give evidence for fear of his life. Furthermore, Sir, it often takes a very long time, sometimes years, to build up a picture of the activities of terrorists. They have many aliases as Yong Kok Kim, the President of my hon. Friend across the floor, had - several Communist Party aliases. They have a technique of changing their home addresses, and changing their places of work, and you have to build up the picture from statements by various persons detained, who know only the aliases, and who can give you certain information; but by the time the jigsaw puzzle is complete, some of the persons who gave the statements on which the picture is built may already have been repatriated. Sir, I like it to be understood that under this law it is not a question of imprisonment, it is a question of preventive detention - detention to prevent conduct which may gravely prejudice the security and safety of the State and its citizens. Very often, Sir, we consider that the departure of the detainee to his place of original birth would put him sufficiently far away from us to render him innocuous, or at least harmless. In those circumstances, Sir, it has been and will continue to be the policy of this Government to repatriate as soon as possible as many as we can. These people having been repatriated, Sir, all we have remaining are their statements, and these often give very valuable information.

Sir, no government can abdicate its duty to protect its citizens, and since we cannot utilise the full magnificent judicial process and judicial tradition which we have for the trial of these individuals who constitute a threat to our security, we have to seek extra-judicial means for our very survival, and yet give the maximum possible protection to the citizens. Sir, in this search for a law to fit the formula of the maximum security for the citizen within the context of the basic security of the country, we have studied the laws of our neighbours who have the same problems. I have supplied to every single Member of this House copies of the Security of Pakistan Act, the Preventive Detention Act of India, and the Public Order Preservation Act of Burma. Each and every one of these laws of our great neighbours gives powers to the Executive of preventive arrest and detention. If hon. Members have studied these laws, Sir, they must admit that the Bill now before this House is far and away the most liberal, the most circumspect in every detail, and the one that gives the greatest protection to the basic rights of a human being. We, on this side of the House, Sir, have striven with sincerity to give every possible protection to the honest citizen from the possible abuse of executive power, and I venture to say that we have done far more in that direction, with respect to our neighbours, than all our neighbours combined. They are far greater people with far longer traditions of democracy than we have.

When I was in Indonesia, Sir, I naturally made the same enquiries. This matter has been very much on my mind, and I learned that in Indonesia they have a law known as S.O.B. which provides for preventive arrest and detention. Unfortunately I have been unable to obtain a translation as yet, but I will certainly supply a copy to hon. Members as soon as I can get it.

This Government is only too anxious to give the maximum possible protection within the context of the protection of the people in the country. I understand that the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. - dominated unions, startled by the evidence of which they were in ignorance - and, frankly, I have to confess, of which I was in ignorance before - that all our neighbours have these laws which provide for preventive arrest and detention - have now come out with a strange and a fantastic explanation. They say it is quite all right for India, Burma, Pakistan and Indonesia to have these laws. They are independent countries, but we are a colony. We should not have any! A colony, it seems, Sir, cannot, must not, and should not legislate for the security of its citizens and its form of government. What a fantastic stand for a Party that pretends to hope one day to govern the people of this territory!

It has also been suggested by my Friend, the Member for Bukit Timah, that this law will be used by this Government, Sir, to perpetuate colonialism! I am happy for the recent constitutional crisis because, amongst other things, Sir, the private correspondence between His Excellency and myself was ordered to be published, and any person who has read that correspondence knows that the Coalition Government and each and every one of the Parties constituting it, and each and every one of the Members on this side of the House, was ready and willing to sacrifice himself in order to pursue the principle of rapid self-government for this territory. Anyone knowing that but pretends to believe that this Government will use the law in order to perpetuate colonialism is defrauding himself.

Sir, there have been some criticisms - on the face of them legitimate, and some of them, in fact, very constructive - directed against this Bill. The first one I will deal with is that it seeks to make law for three years what has so far been law for only three months at a time. In the past we had to renew this law every three months. The question of renewal of a law every three months was based on the concept of the existence of an emergency. This Government, Sir, believes in facing facts. A situation which has existed for eight years and promises to exist for many more cannot be called an emergency. That, Sir, is a misnomer. It is today part of the fabric of our lives. It is just possible, Sir, that the amnesty which has been offered by the Federation and ourselves may bring about a radical change in the situation. If that happens - I pray it happens - I will be only too happy to review the situation and to remove what I frankly admit is an inroad in the rule of law.

We of the Singapore Government offered the amnesty because we hope to attract back to the normal healthy democratic way those who were loyal nationalists but who, through frustration and bitterness and inability to improve the existing conditions, strayed into the camp of violence and tyranny. We are not hopeful that international Communism will really relax its efforts to obtain by violence, control of this strategic island. At the same time, Sir, although we cannot see at present the end of the situation which requires the existence of this law, we wish to give this House an opportunity, before it is dissolved, of reviewing the whole situation. This Government has never avoided, and so long as I survive on this side will never avoid its responsibilities, and instead of making it four years and "passing the buck" to the next government, we will have to face this House, at least five months before its dissolution, and review the situation. That is the reason for the three-year period. It is not intended as a permanent measure, but it is not conceivably a palliative for three months. Let us face it.

The second criticism, Sir, which has been levelled at the Bill is that the power to order detention has been given to the Chief Secretary, a colonial official. We did consider that before we drafted the Bill, and it seemed to us a somewhat invidious position for the Judges of the Appeal Tribunal to sit in judgment on a decision for an order of detention of the Council of Ministers, and we thought that there was sufficient protection if the Council of Ministers could have the power of review every six months. This criticism, Sir, has come from many sides - from perfectly decent people, from the Press, and from some loyal trade unionists whom we have learnt to respect at a time when many went berserk. They have convinced us that, despite the illogical position, it would be more acceptable to give the power of original detention to the Governor-in-Council. Hon. Members have received from me this morning notice of an amendment which I shall move at the Committee stage of this Bill. I have accepted and acceded to the criticism, and the Bill now provides that not the Chief Secretary but the whole Council of Ministers will consider the reports before an order of detention is issued.

Another criticism is that this power of detention is extended from that against persons who are a threat to public security, to persons who are a threat to the maintenance of essential services. This extension which follows our neighbours' provisions was introduced in order to protect the country against possible acts of sabotage and in order to protect the worker against the type of illegal general strike with which he was saddled and under which he suffered last June. We consider that the worker should be protected from the "topengs", the pseudo-trade unionists, when they seek to sacrifice him and the community. We consider that the community should be protected against illegal strikes in essential services, and the operative word is "illegal". There cannot be and there never will be any question of the utilisation of these powers against persons who are lawfully pursuing their constitutional right to strike after proper notice has been given, even in essential services.

Sir, it was an eye-opener to us - the general strike of last June. We all knew, the whole public knew, who were the principal and ostensible organisers of that illegal strike, and yet when we sought to obtain evidence in order to bring them to court; when we examined more than 70 trade unionists for statements - though many of them freely and frankly gave names and indicated in what manner there was intimidation and a threat to bring about this general strike - not one, Sir, would give evidence in public. When it came to formal statements for the Police records, they said, "We went on strike because we felt like going on strike that day! Nobody told us! We each individually just decided that we wanted to take a holiday that day, so we went on strike! That is all there was to it! We just decided to go on strike!" Very clever. Very clever. And we are being blamed today, Sir, for seeking to protect the people from these who made a laughingstock of the law, of the security and the comfort of decent citizens.

However, Sir, in answer to the fears of responsible trade unionists, I have already given notice that I will introduce amendments to clause 3, that I will delete the word "supplies", and that I will define with precision the words "essential services", so that there need be no fear of any ambiguity. The new clause, as it will be amended, is before hon. Members.

Sir, I should like to say a few words about the protection which this Bill gives to the ordinary citizen. Neither my friends of the P.A.P., nor those who are not my friends of the P.A.P.; nor the unions which called that absurd meeting on Sunday and issued its abusive memorandum, illogical and lying, which some have received today: nor even the Progressive Party which in the past used to stand for the progress of vested interests, have seen fit, Sir, to draw attention to the immeasurable improvements we have brought to the original Emergency Regulations for the detention of persons suspected of conduct prejudicial to the safety of this territory. It seems, Sir, that at least in this city and in this territory there is no such thing as fair play in politics. We have been abused and maligned, but not one word was said, Sir, about the successful efforts for improvement and to liberalise the law that now stands.

I should in this House like to take the opportunity, which is mine, to draw attention to these improvements because it seems to me that, like this so-called nine-man committee which represents 80,000 people, it is just possible that hon. Members themselves have not read the Bill. I have already drawn attention to the amendment making it necessary for the whole Council of Ministers to decide on the original order of detention. There is no such safeguard in any other law of preventive detention, past or present.

In order to give the citizen the greatest sense of security possible, Sir, this law requires that the Appeal Tribunal should consist of three Judges, men whose traditions of impartiality, integrity and responsibility through the decades in this territory have earned the respect of every single member of every community. It is three Judges, Sir, who will form the Appeal Tribunal. There is no such protection in any other law in any other territory which provides for preventive detention and arrest. The Appeal Tribunal, Sir, if it considers that there is not enough evidence to justify the detention, can order the release of the detainee. That order is final. It does not matter how dangerous the Government or the Special Branch may think a man is. If the Tribunal of three Judges orders his release, Government must obey. Under the Emergency Regulations and under the laws of our neighbours, the Appeal Tribunal can only advise the Government. The Government retains the final say as to whether it is to release the man or not. But we, and I who have worked in our Courts, have so strong a sense of respect for the responsibility of our Judges that we are content and happy to leave the matter in their hands: and if the three Judges, or the majority of them, decide that the man must be released, Government has no further say. This, Sir, is a radical change in the principle of laws of preventive arrest and detention. No other country in the world, not a single one of our neighbours, provides the protection to the detainee which this law does. It is a malicious falsehood to suggest that this law gives the Government power to arrest anybody whom it dislikes - the Member for Tanjong Pagar, for example - and keep him in prison on a free holiday at the expense of the Government -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): With "Class A" rations!

The Chief Minister: I shall bring you some titbits, myself! Sir, even if the Tribunal confirms the order of detention, the three Judges of our Courts - not ex-Judges, but serving Judges - even if that Appeal Tribunal confirms the order of detention, it is the duty of the Government to see that within six months - and in these six months - a Reviewing Officer, whose qualifications are such that he himself could be a Judge, reviews the history of the detainee and reports on it to the Council of Ministers, and it is the duty of the Council of Ministers every six months to look afresh at the case. The Ministers are not permitted, Sir, by this law to forget for a moment a man they have detained. There is no other country in the world, not one of our neighbours, which has laws of preventive arrest and detention which give this additional opportunity and additional protection to a detainee.

I think it proper, Sir, that I should inform this House, or perhaps remind it, that this Government, of which I have the honour to be the Chief Minister, has used the Emergency Regulations with circumspection, that the majority of the people detained have been or will shortly be brought to court, and that the large majority of the remainder have freely admitted to being members of subversive organisations and have been repatriated or are awaiting repatriation.

Sir, it may mean nothing to hon. Members across the floor, but to the public which has seen us struggle to the utmost of our power for its welfare, to the people of Singapore I give this assurance, with all solemnity, that this Government, and so long as I am Chief Minister, will exercise its powers under this law - if it becomes law - with the utmost circumspection and with the keenest sense of responsibility to the individual as well as to the State. Our conscience is clear. We have acted with honesty and sincerity to protect the welfare of the people and of the individual. Though we unhappily find it necessary, Sir, in the light of experience to perpetuate the law of preventive arrest and detention, we have so improved it that I would be content to live under it, even if the Member for Bukit Timah were Chief Minister!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Judges will be changed!

The Chief Minister: I am interested, Sir, to hear that comment. I am told by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that the Member for Bukit Timah will change the Judges! I can only say: Shame on the P.A.P.! Shame on you, Sir!

We have not been slow to accept criticism and to benefit by it, as is proved by the amendments of which I have already given notice, and many other amendments which I shall bring, not of a vital character, but which will certainly improve the Bill, when we reach the Committee stage. I would like to say, Sir, in this instance at least, I am grateful to the Press and to the Trades Union Congress for constructive criticism, some of which has been most helpful. It is because we hope that hon. Members across the floor will also show a spirit of constructive criticism which will make this Bill as nearly perfect as possible, that Government has decided not to take the Committee stage today. We would like, if it is possible, the Opposition to consider with a sense of responsibility amendments which can improve this Bill. We, who have done our utmost, do not pretend to be omniscient, Sir. We would be glad to consider each and every suggestion, and would gladly accept any improvements which do not destroy the basic needs.

As guardians, Sir, of the safety of the people and the democratic form of government, which alone can assist us to a full and fruitful development, we bring this Bill asking for the weapons necessary for the discharge of our duties. You cannot refuse your guardians the necessary weapons. The people of Singapore must be protected against those who would, with violence, trample on their interests in pursuance of a loyalty to a foreign ideology of tyranny. Those who refuse the Government the power to protect the people will stand self-condemned. The people of Singapore may be illiterate, Sir, but they are not fools and they will not forever be fooled.

We are proud to have sloughed away many of the provisions of the Emergency Regulations. What remains is essential. It is with a heavy heart that I introduce a Bill, Sir, which does not completely remove the existing inroads in the rule of law as I had hoped in the early days of my government. I believe this law is necessary for the protection of the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation of Malaya whom we should never forget. I commend this Bill, Sir, to the honest attention of this House.

Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid (Southern Islands): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Chief Minister.

I do not propose to speak on the relative merits and demerits of the Emergency Regulations. As far as the Alliance is concerned, our platform indicates that the Emergency Regulations should be amended at the earliest possible moment.

Sir, what we must remember is that our island is gradually forging ahead towards independence. We are faced today, not only with the power of colonialism, but also with other factors which are just as bad as colonialism. If we desire to free ourselves from colonialism, we must also guard against attempts by these other factors which will no doubt try to bring about another form of colonialism that would be with us for the rest of our lives.

Question proposed.

Mr Ong Piah Teng (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we all agree that every person regards human rights and personal liberty as sacred and inviolable. Consequently any legislation under whatever title - whether Emergency Regulations or Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - which contains provisions interfering with or restricting such rights is undesirable. We intensely dislike such interference or restriction. At the same time, we also intensely abhor the causes which make it necessary to introduce such restrictive legislation.

We all know why the Emergency Regulations were introduced and how they were operated to the dislike of the people. How certain parts of these restrictive Regulations were removed not so very long ago, and how quickly the same objectionable parts had to be re-introduced by this same Assembly! In giving an account of these events, I am not saying that the reasons for the introduction of the Emergency Regulations and those which led to their re-introduction not very long ago are the same, but they both result in the loss of life and property and are detrimental to the peace and order of this Colony. I am confident that every Member of this House, as well as the public, abhors violence.

Today we are considering whether it is possible to pass a Bill or Bills for the preservation of public security which, we are assured, when accepted, will result in the repeal of the much disliked Emergency Regulations, but which contain some of the objectionable features found in the Emergency Regulations.

Before I express my opinion on this Bill or Bills, I feel it is my duty, first of all, to ask myself whether the causes which were responsible for the introduction of the Emergency Regulations, and the factors which are responsible for the re-introduction of certain objectionable parts of these Regulations that have been repealed earlier, have now com- pletely disappeared. I am not a member of any political Party, hence I am not bound by any political programme; but in the light of past events, the state of affairs in the neighbouring territories, and the as yet unpredictable results of the amnesty, I regret to say that I cannot convince myself that this country can do away with some of the provisions in the law to maintain peace and order.

I do not, for a moment, pretend that this legislation will serve as a cure for such evils. No, no. The remedy lies elsewhere. It can only serve to prevent outbreaks of grave and unforeseen incidents; nor do I suggest that such law should have provisions giving unlimited powers to one single executive to do anything he pleases without any safeguards whatsoever.

I am not a lawyer, so I do not pretend to know the extent of the implications of some of the provisions in the Bill. As far as I can see, it gives very extensive powers to the Executive. Fortunately we have several very eminent lawyers in this House. It is therefore my hope that when they examine this Bill in Committee, they will only retain such powers as are necessary for the preservation of peace and order. They should see to it that the rights of the workers in legitimate trade union activities are not interfered with. Subject to suitable amendments along these lines, I support the Bill.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard what the Hon. the Chief Minister has said this morning. Sir, as a trade unionist, I cannot but express the alarm of the trade unionists in this Colony. The Labour Front Coalition Government has come into power because the people had placed their faith on the programme they promised to carry out. One of the central features of their programme was the Emergency Regulations. These Regulations were imposed to meet the political conditions that arose at the time.

Earlier this year, Sir, most of us in this House - I am afraid I have got to say with the exception of the Progressive Party - realised the feeling of the people in this country on the Emergency Regulations. These Regulations were no longer serving the purpose of saving the country from a grave political crisis, but were, in fact, a fetter on the political development of the people in this country. Trade unionists and freedom fighters were fully alive to this threat of the Malayan freedom movement and to ordinary trade union activity. The colonial Government was struggling to convey the impression that they were helping the people of this country towards self-government, and were encouraging the development of trade unions. I say "struggling to convey the impression" because they desired to maintain themselves in this country by the use of the power of the Emergency Regulations.

Today the Labour Front Coalition Government is in power, but under a very different political situation. We have today people who are no longer afraid of fighting for their democratic rights, people who no longer intend to live in servility, people who will no longer submit in silence to the threat and coercion brought upon them by this piece of legislation. What is most important, Sir, is that our people, who stood together against these Emergency Regulations, have sent to this Assembly House today their representatives to carry out their election pledge.

When the Labour Front came into power, it was faced with difficulty - problems of the riots and general industrial unrest. In fact, as an aftermath of the elections and the release of energy, and the feeling of greater hopes after the years under the Emergency Regulations, the riots in May this year seemed almost inevitable. Industrial unrest, of course, has not ceased and is not likely to cease as long as conditions of employment are unsatisfactory. With a greater volume of trade union activity and the determined stand of the workers to improve the conditions of living, industrial unrest will continue to exist unless, of course, the Government is able to carry out social and economic reforms in the interests of the people.

Sir, these Bills before us today are a great threat to trade unionists who are determined to fight and to secure better terms of employment for the workers. Trade unionists are no longer silent and submissive, and to add to this, we have the threat of new legislation which is, in fact, no different from the Emergency Regulations. Such legislation can easily be interpreted by trade unionists as being in the interests of the employers. The views of genuine trade unionists, who are truly representative of the workers, have been frequently expressed during the past few days, and I am sure that the Government is aware of these views. As a method of expressing their views, they have sought to raise a hue and cry.

I am against the imposition of new legislation. If our cries should pass unheeded, I would like to remind Members of the Government that they will be taken to task in the future on the election pledge they made to the public early this year.

Sir, only last night the Naval Base Labour Union deplored this Security Bill. Outside this Assembly House now, officials and members of the Naval Base Labour Union are demonstrating against this Bill by peaceful picketing. At this stage, the workers of the armed Services are presenting their grievances to the management. They cannot but feel unhappy at the legislation which may be used against them. Sir, I have been directed by the Naval Base Labour Union to state that the members of the Union are pledged to oppose this Bill.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister, during his now very famous election campaign under the old apple tree, had said many uncomplimentary things about the present Emergency Regulations. But there is at least one thing to be said about these Emergency Regulations. It is that they had to be renewed every three months.

He now has introduced into this House a Bill which seeks to put into permanent form most of the objectionable features that are to be found in the Emergency Regulations. His excuse is that India and Pakistan have enacted similar legislation, and there is, therefore, no reason why we should not follow suit. May I remind the Chief Minister that India and Pakistan were never oppressed with having to be ruled for seven years under Emergency powers and never had to contend with the position which faces our people today?

The Chief Minister: Poppycock!

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Legislation to protect public security did not follow with indecent haste the long period of rule under Emergency powers. India and Pakistan and our other Asian friends did not have to suffer the indignation of seeing their Government putting into permanent form oppressive legislation which has occasioned a lot of public criticism and public condemnation.

The Bill which we are asked to approve today gives the Chief Secretary the power to detain on his own warrant -

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Nonsense!

Mr Goh Chew Chua: - any person who is suspected of acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or order for a period not exceeding two years. I remember listening to the public speeches made by the Chief Minister. He was against this sort of thing against which he spoke with great passion, yet today the same Mr Marshall, now Chief Minister, seeks to ask us to approve what he a few months ago publicly condemned.

My Party and I are opposed to the use of violence in any form. We have striven and will continue to strive to bring about desirable changes in the government of the Colony by constitutional means. We cannot, however, subscribe to what the Labour Government is trying to do today - detention of the people of Singapore on mere suspicion. May I remind the Chief Minister that if he ever attempts to rail-road this Bill through this House today, he may one day have to answer for it? It may happen that he will have to answer to the people of Singapore, and under the very same old apple tree where not so long ago he denounced the Emergency Regulations and all the arbitrary powers associated with them.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised sometimes at the ignorance displayed by certain Members of this House who come here with prepared speeches and talk nonsense. They never read the amendments that have been explained by the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: They do not even listen to speeches!

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Yes, they do not even listen to speeches! Thank you, Mr Chief Minister! They come to criticise legislation that the Government seeks to pass for the protection of the public against violence and victimisation by forces which seek to turn illiterate masses into mobs of violence. I do not see any reason why any reasonable man, any man who values justice that has been practised in this country, could object to such legislation, which, as explained by the Chief Minister, is much more lax than legislation in other countries such as India, Pakistan and Burma.

The Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) said that this law is a threat to trade unionism. I do not see how legitimate trade unionism can be threatened by such lax legislation. There is an assurance by the Chief Minister that no legitimate trade disputes will be taken as reasons for the Government to detain any person. There is also the criticism that this is but a political fetter, and I challenge Members of this House to cite one instance where Government has detained any person who seeks to fight for his political freedom.

I urge hon. Members to study the Bill with care and circumspection, and that all reasonable Members will support it.

Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. The restrictions on democratic liberties under the Emergency Regulations are just as repugnant under any other name. The claws of the beast remain the claws of the beast, whether in velvet gloves or in silk gloves. For seven years now the forces of colonialism in this country have sought to frustrate the aspirations of the people for democracy and political freedom.

The Emergency Regulations were enforced by the colonial power on the excuse that they were necessary for the suppression of Communism in this country. We were told that once the wicked Communists were destroyed, good, god-fearing, democratic-minded and freedom-loving people like our Hon. the Chief Secretary and other executives of colonialism in this country would be able to solve all our political, social and economic problems for us. But after seven years of Emergency Regulations; years of arrests and detentions without trial; or banishment orders and broken families and homes; of untold miseries suffered by thousands of men and women; years of suppression of the basic democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, association and publication; of the suppression of the intellectual liberties of the people, - the general social and political unrest in this country continues. This general unrest will continue and even grow, until its basic cause has been removed. This basic cause is colonialism. If the general unrest, the political, social and economic dissatisfactions are to cease, colonialism must cease first. That is an essential pre-condition.

Why have the Emergency Regulations failed in achieving anything at all, besides increased human misery and suffering? They have failed because they do not provide any solution for the political, social and economic problems of this country. These problems require political, social and economic solutions - not punitive or military solutions. The anti-democratic provisions of the Emergency Regulations and now of the new Public Security Bill are essentially punitive and completely ineffective colonial remedies for the deep-rooted political, social and economic diseases of colonialism. Colonialism and colonial officials cannot cure this disease, because they are part of the disease themselves. The only solution for the disease of colonialism is the ending of colonialism and its replacement by complete political independence and full democracy for the peoples of this country.

Colonial officials will, of course, claim that they are busy getting the people of this country ready for freedom and democracy. I am not a very clever person, Sir, like the Hon. the Chief Secretary, who can prove that black is white, and that Fascist laws and democratic laws are one and the same thing. I must confess that my Party and I cannot understand how the people of this country can progress towards democracy when they are denied the most basic democratic rights. Only the wilfully blind and the politically ignorant will claim that the powers of detention without trial, and the restriction on freedom of speech, expression and assembly, have not had a repressive effect on genuine political expression and development in this country.

Restrictions on democratic liberties have always got a political purpose behind them. Laws which deny democratic rights are valuable, for instance, to colonial officials for the purpose of intimidating the free expression of political views which are contrary to the aims of colonialism. Such laws are useful for the suppression of political and social expressions of popular discontent which are dangerous to the colonial system. They are also extremely useful to those who hate to see the emergence of a strong and genuine trade unionism in this country. There is nothing surprising or shocking about colonial officials who support these laws. Repressive laws are necessary for the preservation of colonialism, and it is part of the duties of colonial officials to pass such laws. But it is an entirely different matter for elected representatives of the people to support such laws. Not only must they not support such laws, but they must actively oppose Bills like the Public Security Bill. Failure to do this will be a great betrayal of the interests of the people to the interests of colonialism. It is especially true for hon. Members of the Labour Front. The Labour Front fought and won the elections on a platform which condemned the Emergency Regulations and asked for their repeal. Everyone knows that the Preservation of Public Security Bill is the same old enemy of democratic liberties in a new and more permanent disguise. The Labour Front now preserves the restrictions on democratic rights which they promised to repeal. It looks as if the Labour Front has changed its backseat drivers! During the elections they behaved as if the people were the backseat drivers of the Labour Front. It is right and honourable for the elected representatives of the people to recognise only the people who elected them as their back-seat drivers, but the people appear now to have met with a tragic rebuff. The Labour Front has chosen the forces of colonialism as their backseat drivers.

It is ridiculous to talk of public security under colonialism. What public security is there when members of the public can be arrested and detained without trial? What public security is there when members of the public are denied their basic human rights? Let us not be hypocrites! Let us call things by their correct names. The Bill before this House today is not a Public Security Bill, but a colonial security Bill.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Nonsense!

Mr Lim Ching Siong: The laws of colonialism are meant to protect colonialism, not to protect the people. Only a free and democratic Malaya can pass a genuine Public Security Bill which will guarantee the public freedom from detention without trial and the enjoyment of basic human rights.

To the Chief Minister who once warned this House against the hand of friendship proffered by my Party, by referring to the Kiss of Judas, I issue a challenge. Will he explain to the people of Singapore, "Whose one now is the Kiss of Judas?" As far as my Party and I are concerned, we shall never commit the grievous sin of exchanging the people as our back-seat drivers for the colonial officials who sit on the Government Benches.

The Chief Minister: What about my question?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that this House wishes to deny the People's Action Party time to consider the Chief Minister's very calculated remarks. I never like to speak in haste and to regret things at some later date.

Since the House wishes me to meet the ferocious attack by the Chief Minister on the People's Action Party straightaway, may I first congratulate him? I have always been an admirer of his tactics in Court, for he is the supreme advocate of the strategy of attack when you are on the defensive. If there is one person in this Assembly who today feels a sense of guilt - if he is the sensitive and honest politician that I have always believed him to be - he must also feel a sense of shame, because he has not had the courage to put his powerful and persuasive arguments before the people who gave him the mandate to come to this House to repeal the Emergency Regulations.

One of the basic political tenets of democracy is that a Party is elected on its election platform. Of course, if one wishes to avoid the inconvenience of having to go back to the people after going back on an election pledge one could say, in a moment of flamboyance, "I would break a promise if it were in the interests of the country." To commit that heresy would make a mockery of democracy.

The whole attack that the Chief Minister has skilfully directed does not explain why, if he honestly and sincerely believes that he is right in changing his mind, he should not take the people into his confidence, and put these facts before them. Let him ask for a mandate for this most important of all the Labour Front's election platforms - a mandate for the Emergency Regulations to be attired, not in a policeman's uniform, but in the Chief Minister's bush jacket.

Everyone knows that the Public Security Bill is but an alias for the Emergency Regulations. There are some modifications and some amendments. For example, from a Review Committee to an Appeal Tribunal; from one Judge with a panel of laymen, to three Judges; from a Judge who could only recommend, to three Judges who could order. But none of these things can explain away the fact that what the Labour Front is seeking to do today is something quite contrary to what they told the people they were going to do. That is the most serious political mistake that any political Party can make in this part of the world. There is one thing which we must prize above everything else. If we condemn the Communists for being hypocrites, for being thugs, for being rogues who intimidate other people, then let us be honest Democrats. Let us face the world and face the music, if we find out that we have made a mistake, as the Chief Minister has said he has.

If I were a good actor like the Hon. the Chief Minister, I could feign surprise and righteous indignation at this blatant attempt by his colleagues and himself to cloud this very important constitutional principle by launching into a tirade against Members of my Party, and reciting a slanted account of the now familiar events of the Hock Lee riots and the general strike. If I were David Marshall, Sir, which I am not, I would have thought that the honest thing to do would have been to go back to the people and say, "When we drafted this election platform, I was away learning Socialism in England. My colleagues in Singapore, even more political innocents than myself, were trying to outbid the People's Action Party. They wrote in their platform that they would repeal the whole of the Emergency Regulations when the People's Action Party, with care, circumspection and deliberation, said they would repeal the Emergency Regulations which provide for arrest and detention without trial, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of publication." If the Chief Minister today accurately represents the feelings, the temper and the views of the people, then, no doubt, he and his colleagues would be returned with greater strength and greater confidence. They would have a mandate to go through with this legislation; and I and my Party, if we were also returned by our constituents, would have less reason to doubt the political integrity, if not the sagacity, of the hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Not long ago, the Chief Minister himself let one of the biggest cats out of the political bag when, in a moment of anger and bitterness, he recounted how a colonial Governor tried to inveigle him into a conspiracy to cheat the people. The colonial Governor invited him to repeal the Emergency Regulations. Then they, the colonial government, would re-impose them under the Governor's reserved powers. The Chief Minister, his sense of decency rebelling at this indecent suggestion, said he would not cheat the world in such a way as to make it believe that he was an honest democrat, and the Governor was - if I may quote the words of another publication which we have all received this morning, a memorandum which the Chief Minister has referred to in slighting terms - "the vicious and repugnant" instrument of oppression.

But we are now being asked to elevate rules and orders under the Emergency Regulations, from the lowly status of Emergency Regulations to the resplendent status of being part of the normal law of the land. The reason advanced is that this is necessary to combat Communist terrorism and subversion. Sir, no one denies that there is Communist terrorism or subversion. When any "ism", be it Communism or Fascism, resorts to violence or terror, it must be resisted. But we are at the same time being asked to believe in democracy. We say we believe in democracy because it is a more liberal and a more civilised way of life. We say we dislike Communism because, under that form of government, they have arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial. They have, what we fortunately so far have not got here, arbitrary powers of physical liquidation without trial. So we are told that the democratic way of life is far superior. Yet, for over eight years now the British and their friends have gradually worked themselves into a frame of mind when, in the name of democracy, they can introduce every rule and every order which is a complete denial of the basic tenets and beliefs of democracy. That I think is the greatest psychological defeat suffered by the British in this battle between the two fanaticisms - Communism and anti-Communism. We, in this part of the world, I think, could profitably avoid being implicated in this clash of fanaticisms, for as long as it is possible. There are other people in Asia, far more knowledgeable in these matters than colonial officials like the Chief Secretary, who believe in dynamic neutralism -

The Chief Minister: The countries in Asia have not got this law.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, when the Indian Government in 1950 passed their Act, they had a mandate from the people - and that is a great difference.

The Chief Minister: Ha!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Is it not?

The Chief Minister: A colony cannot legislate against rape and murder! Only the free countries can!

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Chief Minister has a colourful inclination towards colourful metaphors. We are not saying one should not legislate against rape and murder. In fact, the Chief Minister would have the support of the People's Action Party if he decided to bring further penalties against rape and murder, if it were found to be too prevalent in this part of the world. But -

The Chief Minister: Not for public security!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - But, Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Chief Minister does not realise is that an independent government, which has the freedom to decide its own destiny, has the right, through its elected representatives, to choose any way of life - any rule of law under which they should live. But in a Colony where the circumstances are different, where the people have never been given the power and their elected representatives the right to decide their own destiny, I say it is morally wrong to do what the Chief Minister now seeks to do. What he is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty and the most fundamental of them all - freedom from arrest and punishment without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it. Of course, the Chief Minister could quibble and say, "After all, it is not punishment; it is not imprisonment; it is detention under the most benign and kind conditions." But no man should be deprived of his liberty. It may be that such a liberal way of life does not and cannot exist in conditions in South-East Asia. But if that is so, then let the Chief Minister at least have the courage to go back to the people and tell them so, and seek a mandate to do what he wants to do. I am sure he will understand that it is better done that way now than deferred for three years.

The most important observation which the Chief Minister has allowed to drop from his lips is that, after eight years of the Emergency, we are faced with a problem as grave and as acute as when it began. It is the most conclusive proof that the Emergency Regulations are not the answer either to Communist terrorism or Communist subversion. The Emergency Regulations have not destroyed Communism, but it may well destroy democracy. It has not completely frightened the Communists, but it may act as a dampening restraint on the nationalists. Of course the Chief Minister has not given his assurance to me personally that I would not suffer under these Regulations - but we all believe, at least we all should believe, that as long as his Government is in control, conscientiously, scrupulously, and honestly working these rules and regulations, no one will be penalised or made to suffer who does not deserve to be penalised or made to suffer. But he has not said what would happen if, in fact, these special powers were not used with the same scrupulous care and regard for human values as they are -

The Chief Minister: Three Judges!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Three Judges! Great play has been made of three Judges! But I should have thought that purely counting by numbers it does not get us very far! One good judge is as good as three. If you have one good judge and you put in two bad ones, I should have thought you would have lowered the mean average! But what does it all prove? It only proves that three Judges can order a man's release against the wishes of the Governor. It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release. There will be three Judges who sit and receive evidence in the absence of the person against whom the evidence is being given, and in the absence of his counsel. I think the Chief Minister will be the first to admit that it does not, in any way, approximate to the protection which a trial by confrontation -

The Chief Minister: Never pretend to!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am not saying the Chief Minister pretended, Sir. The Chief Minister pretended a lot of things this morning, but I am not accusing him of this. I am pointing out to him now that it nowhere approximates to the same protection which he, as a criminal advocate, must know is of vital importance.

If, after eight years of these Regulations, we are faced with the same conditions - and we are now asked to be more realistic and incorporate these Regulations in a more permanent form for another three years - we wonder whether it is because the Chief Minister and his colleagues expect the danger to exist for another three years, or that only the Bill will exist for another three years. If the Bill is designed against Communist subversion, and will be maintained so long as Communist subversion is present, then I say this Bill will outlive this Legislature and many Legislatures to come, for Communism is not a passing fashion or a passing craze. It is and it has become the way of life of nearly half of Asia and a large part of Europe and we must understand the basic causes of it -

An hon. Member: Fight it!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Before you fight it, you must understand what you are fighting. It is no use saying that they are evil men out to wreck, out to create chaos, out to stir up disorder, or out to make the poor worker suffer, when you do not understand, or attempt to understand, why it is that they, and they alone, can work this passion: first, for freedom; second, for their own political beliefs.

The Chief Minister: They do not win such allies!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They do not what?

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is a significant point, and the Chief Minister should think more of it: that nowhere in SouthEast Asia is Communism more successful than in colonial Indo-China and colonial Malaya. I am not saying that India, Burma, Pakistan and Indonesia have not got their own Communist problems. Communism, as I understand it, and not only from textbooks, is a product of social and economic frustration and discontent. When you have this social and economic discontent and it is exacerbated by the irritants of colonial control, then you have a situation growing into cancerous proportions. I am not suggesting that if we are free tomorrow of the eminent members of the civil and legal services who sit with us here as of right under the constitution, we should be free from all our troubles. But I do say that we have a much better chance of resolving the internal social and economic discontent than we ever can have now. To me, Sir, it is an act of faith. If it does not work, then what can work? Violent military suppression of Communism? It has little chance of succeeding. It might succeed in South America because it is so far away and it is such a different world, where dictators come and go. But Asia in revolt, Asia on the march, is a very different proposition.

The Chief Minister, with his flair for colourful metaphor, will appreciate this when I say that the problem of Communist subversion and terrorism has become a cancer in our body politic. These Emergency Regulations at best can only be barbiturates. They numb the pain. They lull one into a sense of security, into an illusion that perhaps, after all, the thing that causes the pain is not there. But I myself would prefer a bold cure. I would take one bold step to freedom. Then I say we have a fighting chance to resolve our own social and economic problems when they are reduced to the proportions which they naturally assume in any part of the world, for anywhere social and economic discontent inevitably leads to industrial and social unrest.

I would say that such a free government, speaking for the people, deciding its destiny absolutely and unreservedly, could drastically repeal those parts of the Emergency Regulations which militate against the fundamental rights of human beings anywhere in the world. This would not lead to Communism if such a step were accompanied by an equally bold and drastic economic and social reform. To shrug and doubt is to admit defeat. You may stifle political discontent, but it will come out at some subsequent date in a much more virulent form. If we take our chance now, I say Malaya can succeed as an independent and free democracy.

The Emergency as a violent struggle is very probably going through a decline, and a new phase of bitter political struggle is opening up. If we do not relax these Emergency Regulations with a relaxing of this violence, then we are admitting to ourselves that we are irrevocably wedded to what I am sure the Chief Minister will agree is a totalitarian method of government.

An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "Nonsense", Sir, covers up a lot of ignorance of many, many things. If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it? I am sure the Minister for Communications will be the first to say that that is what is wrong with Communist States. Then what is done in the name of democracy is right. When it is done in some other name, it is wrong. But these are fundamental beliefs. They may or may not work in Asia, that no one can say. But one can say this:one must have the courage to make it work, to try it; for if it cannot work, then the alternative is one of constant suppression the end of which no one knows.

I believe that for seven years now we have developed an Emergency mentality. Many people believe that the only way to keep down any form of agitation, which anybody may have exploited for their own personal or political ends, is by the use of repressive laws, more policemen, and more arrests. But this has been proved false after seven years. I hate to think that after another three or four years, or whenever it may be when the Chief Minister decides to go back to the people, that it is again to be proved false. It is such a futile answer to the Communist challenge. If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself. My plea - to quote from sonic-one in another context - is that the time has come in Malaya for an agonising reappraisal of strategy and strength. To go on blindly in the hope that somehow or the other suppression can prevent latent social, economic and political discontents from manifesting themselves and disrupting the structure of society is a piece of folly to which my Party does not subscribe.

I ask the Chief Minister, before he launches into another furious tirade against me and my Party, to think of the political implications it has, first, on himself and his Party, and, second, on Singapore and Malaya. My Party believes, passionately, that the only solution is a hard one, where a great deal of social adjustments may have to be suffered in order that a more stable and a just society could emerge in the non-Communist world in South-East Asia.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): Sir, there is to me a most distressing similarity between the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong). I do not mean to imply, Sir, that they are both Communists, but what distresses me, Sir, is that they are both, and in at least one case wilfully, deluded about this self-created bogey of colonialism. The Member for Bukit Timah has his mind so firmly fixed on the evil doings of colonial officials - of those few of us who survive in this exalted Chamber -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very comfortably survive!

Mr Goode: - that he seems to be quite unable to put his mind at all on to the problems which face the Government of Singapore today and which face this Assembly today. He, apparently, is quite happy to face a situation in which, as he says, there will be continued general unrest because of the basic cause of colonialism. Because colonialism, in his view, denies the people of Singapore today their basic human rights, he is prepared, apparently, to continue, from day to day, allowing Singapore to continue in a state of unrest - a state of unrest which, if I know anything about it, so far from his trying to stop it, he will try to inflame. So much for the Member for Bukit Timah.

Now how terribly similar is the attitude of the Member for Tanjong Pagar! He treated us to a long dissertation on what he thought the Chief Minister ought to do. Fortunately, he is not yet Chief Minister, and I, for one, and I am sure all on my side of the House are quite confident that the Chief Minister will judge what he should do without receiving free advice from the

Member for Tanjong Pagar, who enjoys, of course, all the delights of play-acting in this House, of appealing to the Gallery and never having to honour a cheque.

But to revert, if I may, to the point that I was going to make which I feel is distressing and is dangerous. It is that while the Member for Tanjong Pagar understands and sees the danger of the Communist ideology, and is fully conscious of it, he is, in fact, I think, half fascinated by its dynamism and by its selflessness. But what does he do? All he does is to tell us that the Emergency Regulations and colonial methods will not stop the Malayan Communist Party in Singapore. Of course, they will not. No one ever suggested they would, and I certainly do not suggest that, through measures such as the Emergency Regulations and these new Bills, we can root out Communism from the body politic in Singapore. Of course, we cannot. All we can do with these measures is to try and stop it getting out of hand and to try and take away its most dangerous leaders. But the basic issue is the issue which must be fought by the citizens of Singapore - not by colonial officials - but by the citizens of Singapore and by their leaders, and by such people as the Member for Tanjong Pagar sets himself out to be. It is for you to fight this battle. It is for you to capture the minds and the hearts of the citizens of Singapore and to stop them being led away along that false and sterile trail which leads to Communist dictatorship which I know you do not want to see in Singapore.

I do warn you and all Members of this House, with the utmost sincerity, against being deluded into this idea that you can avoid being involved in the struggle between Communism and democracy. You cannot avoid it. It is here today. It is with you night and day. Do not, I beg you, delude yourselves with some such extraordinary phrase as "dynamic neutralism". There is not such thing as "dynamic neutralism" in the Communist philosophy of life which is challenging you today, here and now. I say to you that if you wait, which is what the Member for Tanjong Pagar wants to do - he says he cannot fight Communism until he has got rid of colonialism; he cannot fight Communism until Singapore has got independence - I say to you, you cannot afford to wait. The struggle is here for you to fight it now, and the more vigorously you fight it, the quicker you will get independence - an independence which is worth while. Do not give yourself the excuse of not being independent today to refuse to do what is now your duty and what, if you do not do it now, it may be too late to do in the future.

The Chief Minister rose -