Suspension of sitting

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest the suspension of this sitting?

Mr Speaker: You are at liberty to move a motion, Mr Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Sir, I move,

That the sitting be suspended until 2.30 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.36 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, of all the Bills that have been passed as law since after the liberation, the Bill that was disliked most by all people was the one on the Emergency Regulations. We have today, of course, the Public Security Bill which, if we boil it down to its essence, would be just about the same as the Emergency Regulations.

However, it has always been our view that extraordinary times need extraordinary Bills, and extraordinary measures must be used to keep law and order. Our view, however, is that the Emergency Regulations, or the present security measures, should not be kept one day longer if necessary. The Emergency Regulations were a temporary measure renewable every three months. This, of course, has its advantage. Any cases in which Government might detain people might be brought up and aired, and any grievances that people genuinely have may get a hearing. The Government also have to make out a case, when the life of the Emergency Regulations is ending and it is time to have it renewed, to show that the Emergency Regulations are still necessary.

Now, the Public Security Bill is to be put on the Statute book for a period of three years. I say again that measures such as the Emergency Regulations or the Public Security Bill are distasteful to the people. They are distasteful for various reasons which I will try to explain later, but all are agreed that they are not a very pleasant thing to keep. We governed Singapore before 1948 with no such rules, and I hope that there will come the day when we can remove all such Regulations and return to a normal life. To keep security measures on the Statute book is something that nobody likes. It is something that we would like to put in the backyard, but putting it on the Statute book, making it law, it is just like moving that distasteful substance into the house itself.

All people in Singapore and anywhere else value freedom, and anything that is going to take away personal freedom from them will be distasteful and undemocratic. But I say, for a large majority of the people, we need to have such measures to protect them, but people do not like it. I would say that the people who say they are for it just tolerate it.

The people who dislike such measures, I think, can be classified under three categories. Obviously, the first category of people are the subversive elements. They hate it, and they hate it with all their might, and you know why they hate it.

The second category of people would be, I should say, the ordinary citizens, probably connected with trade unions and respectable people. Some of these people, I should say, may have been called in by the Special Branch for interrogation. There may be a case against them, but more often, as I know it, they are usually let off and, of course, this Bill has given them the jitters that probably they will be the victims of interrogation by the police. There are grounds for their fears, and I think that the power that such measures as these Regulations give to the Government should be used most sparingly, especially with trade unionists who are trying to better the standard of living of the workers. They have legitimate reasons. If we can prove to trade unionists that these measures are not against people doing the right things, we will probably win over a very large section of moderately-minded persons.

Now, the last category of people who dislike these measures would be the ordinary men-in-the-street. They dislike them for this reason. We know that if a member of the subversive elements is hauled in and interrogated, and later on other people are called in to give evidence, they will do so on the quiet; but if you ask them to come forward to give their evidence on oath, they will cringe and they will suppress any information that they have. The reason obviously is fear - fear of reprisal. In the same way, the peace-loving citizens of Singapore are afraid of this, not from the subversive elements, but from the police. We know that the power might be given to the Governor in Council that the case might be handled by the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of Police, but, invariably, the investigation part of it must be done by the rank and file. I have, during my short term here, received a number of complaints about detectives putting fear into peace-loving citizens by telling them, "You play ball with us, otherwise we might book you in for this." This is very serious, and I bring forward this point of view because in the Public Security Bill there is power given to the ordinary Inspector to search a house and arrest on suspicion. I believe that must be rectified to make it safer for peace-loving citizens to consider that their home is their castle, and unless there is very strong suspicion, this power should never be used at all.

We have just recently heard of an offer of amnesty offered by the Government to subversive elements. What does this amnesty tell us? Is the situation getting worse, or is still normal, or has it gone better? It must have pointed to one of these three. I should say that such an amnesty offer does indicate that the situation is getting more normal, because I should like to think that such a measure is indicative as being the last round for subversive elements to come out so that we can again lead our normal way of life. If it is going to give us peace, as we hope it would give us peace, then I think to put this Bill in the form of the Public Security Bill for three years would not be justifiable. We do not know whether this Emergency situation will end in three months or in six months, or whatever time it may be, but my contention is that the moment the Emergency situation eases, then we must let the Emergency Regulations lapse.

Comparing the two Bills - the established Bill, which is the Emergency Regulations, and the second one, this Public Security Bill - I would prefer that the Emergency Regulations remain as they are so that we can have a review every three months. You will gather, from what I have said, that we are not in favour of the present Public Security Bill on the point of the length of time and the power it might give to the Police - especially the junior police officers. This power, as I have said, given to them must be very carefully considered. An experienced man need not have much guidance, but raw hands may sometimes provoke serious incidents which might undermine the faith of the people in the police.

I am talking in this trend because I feel that we should have the people co-operating with the police, and every step that we take should strive towards this end. I hope that the Government will consider what I put forward to them in the light that it is for the good of all concerned.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed new legislation, as we see it, is merely a subterfuge to a large extent for the existing Emergency Regulations. The only difference which I welcome as a substantial improvement is that an Appeal Tribunal, with apparent real power, will sit in place of the Advisory Committee whose responsibility is to make recommendations to the Governor who may either accept or reject them at his pleasure.

It is quite clear that Government still recognises the need for Emergency powers, and by introducing the proposed legislation (which, if approved, will be incorporated into the ordinary laws of the Colony) it seeks to retain these oft-criticised Emergency powers on a more permanent instead of a temporary basis, subject to review and extension once in every three months.

However, Sir, in view of the several amendments just proposed by the Hon. the Chief Minister, in view of the Chief Minister's desire not to legislate the Bill today but to put it in Committee, and in view of the Chief Minister's assurance that further constructive suggestions and criticisms will be considered and further amendments, if any, and if desirable, be adopted, my Party will reserve our position until then.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, although I am a schoolmaster by profession, it is no part of my normal duties to ensure that the Members of the Opposition do their homework. They have come into this Assembly today and, in their speeches, some of them have given considerable evidence that they have not done their homework. They have apparently not read the Bill. They have not read the amendments. They have not even listened to the speeches in the Assembly, but still I will pass this by because those things are in the public eye and will remain so, no doubt. But when they further give evidence of having neglected their homework by attacking us on what they call our pre-election pledges without apparently having read these pledges or knowing what these pledges are, I feel that I should help them to understand what they have apparently misunderstood.

One Member of the People's Action Party said in a speech in this Assembly just now that we had promised that we would repeal the whole Emergency Regulations. He is not in the room but those are the words as I wrote them down from his very mouth. That is what he said - we had promised to repeal the whole Emergency Regulations - and he then proceeded to question our integrity because we had not done so. I think that he went extremely far in questioning our integrity and later the integrity of the Judges; as indeed the People's Action Party makes a habit of questioning the integrity of almost anybody who is not a Party member.

Now, our pre-election pledges are contained in this little booklet. It had a circulation, I believe, during the election campaign of about 10,000 copies, but I still have a few copies left and if any hon. Member would like a copy I will get it out of my bag and give it to him, and he can see for himself precisely what we said.

It is a pity that some people did not have one before. [Interruption.] I am always glad to do a little bit of propaganda! Now, this little booklet - I had my share in drawing it up and I can speak with some authority on it - falls into two parts. The first is our Principles and Aims; those were first published about this time last year and they state broadly our objectives as a Party - our principles and our aims. I will now read to you the 13th point of the Principles and Aims. It is on page 2:

"Page 2. The Labour Front stands for investigation of the working of the Emergency and Banishment laws with a view to repeal or revision in conformity with basic concepts of democratic justice and the actual needs of the country."

I repeat once again, "the actual needs of the country".

An hon. Member: Read the whole thing!

Mr Francis Thomas: In deference to my own side, I will read it once again:

"The Labour Front stands for investigation of the working of the Emergency and Banishment laws with a view to repeal or revision in conformity with basic concepts of democratic justice and the actual needs of the country."

That is the first pre-election pledge dealing with the Emergency Regulations.

We will pass to the Four-Year Programme which was published last Christmas. You can find it on page 6 under 10 (a). The heading is "The Repressive Laws":

"The situation in Singapore does not warrant the continuation of the Emergency Regulations and the Labour Front will seek the removal of this unnecessary and undemocratic restriction on the liberty of the people."

"The situation does not warrant this unnecessary restriction" - I hope you will pay attention to the wording because that is not a categorical promise to repeal the Regulations. It is a definite statement that, in a certain situation, certain action will be taken and if the situation changes, the action will necessarily change too. We did not say that we would repeal the Emergency Regulations at any cost. What we said was, "The situation, as we see it now, looks good and promising. The Emergency Regulations are therefore unnecessary and unwarranted."

The Opposition can, if they like - they have not done so - accuse us of being "political innocents" and of being unduly optimistic. They can say that we were blind to the real dangers around us. They can say that we were unrealistic about the strength of the Communist menace, and I will freely admit that when we were drafting these Principles and Aims and this Four-Year Programme, I, for one, did not foresee that riots would be fomented in the streets of Singapore. I did not foresee innocent people would be beaten to death in the streets. I did not foresee that the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union would have a Communist as its President, nor that he would be put into open court, prosecuted, tried and convicted. I could not foresee those things. I did not foresee that a harmless schoolboy would be shot down in the open street by a Communist killer squad. I had not imagined that kind of activity, but it happened. We did not foresee the full gravity of the attack that would be made as soon as democracy began to grow in strength in this country. The People's Action Party may have known better. If so, I am afraid, in that case, I cannot congratulate them on their close acquaintanceship with the forces of destruction. We did not realise the full danger. We have had to learn by bitter experience. We can be accused of past optimism; but I do not think we can be accused of lack of courage or of shirking the realities of the present situation.

Since this Government came into power, the situation has changed in many ways. It has changed very much for the better with regard to our prospects of early self-government. It has changed very much for the better with regard to our prospects for trade, particularly with Indonesia. There are many points on which we can say the situation is much better. But we must also say that the situation is worse in this respect: that the Communist machine has gone into action, as it always does go into action when it sees that democracy is starting to grow up and establish itself.

The actual need has arisen, and we must legislate now to meet the actual need and not to meet the situation of nine months ago. I do not think the Opposition will profess to say that the situation has not, in some respects, deteriorated. The terrorist situation has not deteriorated. I think they will have to admit that. What they may try to say is that, in enunciating the principle that laws are not eternal and that laws must be adjusted to the needs of the moment, they may say that, in saying that, I am putting forward a new and unheard-of principle. They rather tend to talk in terms of absolutes and to say that democracy resides in one particular law and that kind of thing. Now, this is not a new principle at all. It is a principle which was accepted just now by the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong). He said that extraordinary situations need extraordinary laws. It was a principle put forward by the great Greek law-giver Solon more than two thousand years ago, and also by the Chinese teacher Mo Tzu about the same time; but I expect that those classic examples may not appeal to all Members of the Opposition. Perhaps they prefer to have the words of the Soviet jurist, Krylenko. He has since been liquidated, but, in his time, he was an established authority. He said, "At certain moments in history, we quite consciously sacrifice all these guarantees" (that is, the guarantees of justice through normal court procedure) "to the necessity of a swift revolutionary struggle." The fact is that we do not admire the Communist model. We are against it. We can take Mr Krylenko as a practical man. He knew the relative instability and unpopularity of his government, and he knew that it was necessary to defend it. But the fact is that this principle that laws are not eternal - the principle that laws must meet the needs of the moment - is a world-wide principle which stands and will always stand. The question is:What are the laws that are needed in Singapore to deal with terrorism and subversion today in 1955? That is the question we have to deal with, and the Opposition, in considering it, has dismissed it with a wave of its hand, Saying, "India, Pakistan and Burma - Oh no, we cannot take those countries as our models because they are free democracies, and here we are still tainted with colonialism!"

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They would not be here otherwise!

Mr Francis Thomas: Well, shall I give them another example from Russia? Would that be more acceptable to them? At least no one will claim that the Soviets provide a model of free democracy. This is a decree of December, 1934, for dealing with terrorism:

Maximum period of investigation - 10 days;

The accused receives a copy of the charge only 24 hours before he is brought to trial;

The accused is denied any right to defence;

The accused is denied any right to appeal;

The accused is excluded specifically from any possible amnesty; and finally,

Sentence of shooting is to be carried out im mediately after the trial is concluded.

That is how Big Brother in Russia deals with anybody who tries to rise up against him! It was used in December, 1953, for the trial and execution of the late Mr Beria, the former head of the Soviet Secret Police. That is how the Communists rule their own country. I do not hold it up as an example for this House to follow. I hold it up as a warning of what will be imposed on us by the Communists if they can get control. That is what you will have if you allow these subversive forces to catch hold of the Government and to dominate you.

We here are not, thank God, concerned with defending the totalitarian system in which unity is imposed by repression. Perhaps I ought to digress here for a moment because the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), coming down from his cloud of rhetoric, became rather heated on the question of what totalitarianism is. He appeared to think that totalitarianism resided in some specific item or law - which is a complete misapprehension. In case he does not accept my word for it, I have brought in here a standard political dictionary by Theimer and Campbell - an encyclopaedia, in fact - and if he likes me to refer to it, I will refer to it for him. Briefly, I will sum it up by saying that a totalitarian state is a concept which was coined by Mussolini in the early 1920's, and it means a State in which every single activity, every association, every individual, and everything in the State, is welded by force into a single monolith directed from the top. That is totalitarianism, and every activity, even the thoughts of the children and the thoughts of the adult, are subordinated to the State. For a man who is respected and admired by many people in this city, to use the word "totalitarianism" and thereby to seek to accuse India, Pakistan and Burma, and many other free countries of being totalitarian, is to talk nonsense. I would not put it more highly than that, but I would suggest to hon. Members of the Opposition that when they use words, they should use them with respect for their meanings, and they should not try to arouse feelings by using emotional words when they know very well that those words would not, in fact, hold water -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir. Would the Minister for Communications and Works describe the laws that I have referred to as democratic?

Mr Francis Thomas: It is a point to which I am coming, Mr Speaker, if the Member for Tanjong Pagar can contain his impatience for a moment. I shall arrive at that in due course. I said that we were not concerned here with protecting a totalitarian system, but we are concerned with protecting the strong growth of a young democracy in a country which is moving very rapidly towards self-government; and it is precisely because democracy and self-government are growing and strengthening every day here that the Communist attack is now unleashed.

I forget the precise words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but he said something to the effect that Communism has been more successful in Indo-China and Malaya than it has been anywhere else, and he argued that that was because other countries were free and we are still a colonial country. I endorse a good deal of what he said, but I suggest that he remember this: that when Burma cast off the colonial system and freed itself from imperialism, it was then that a Communist walked into the Cabinet Chamber and, with his tommygun, wiped out practically the entire democratic government of Burma. That is what the Communists will always seek to do to democracy. They know that they have no hope of winning power by democratic methods, and as soon as democracy looks strong, they set out to kill it. That is what will happen here as democracy grows stronger here.

Another People's Action Party statement on the 26th of April cried out, with an air of great conviction, that no law should hinder free association, free speech and free publication, and that no consideration of security should weigh against the principle of freedom. That was said by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He is a lawyer - and I am told he is a very able one - but he showed less than the legal precision of thought when he sought to proclaim the principle of absolute unrestricted freedom - for anybody to say anything he likes; to publish anything he likes; for any group of people to associate together for any purpose to take joint action of any sort -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir. Is the Minister for Communications and Works aware that there are ordinary laws regulating what can be said within the law, when one can foregather and assemble for -?

The Chief Minister: That is not a point of information, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Is he aware of it?

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Member for Tanjong Pagar means elucidation.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am aware of it. [Interruption.] The point at issue is the matter of a speech which was made on the 26th of April. I do not think we need dally any longer over it. As I read it, it appears to me to be using words in a very cloudy and vague way, as the People's Action Party often does, because they feel that if they become precise, they have to say things they do not like. As long as they can keep broadly to absolute freedom, it is all right, but when coming down to details, it gets more difficult. The fact, of course, is that the hon. Member knows perfectly well, as everybody knows that freedom depends on law and not on absence of law.

In this very Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we meet freely for democratic purposes. We have free speech and what we say is freely published, but the whole freedom of working in this Assembly depends, Mr Speaker, on our Standing Orders and on the very considerable powers which you, as Speaker, exercise under the Standing Orders. Hon. Members who do not know their Standing Orders should look at pages 16 and 17 where they will find that Mr Speaker has powers without appeal; not merely to say, "Sit down", but to control people, to suspend them and even, if necessary, to remove them by force from the Chamber if they behave in a grossly disorderly way. If this honourable, learned and respected House cannot run freely without having controls - very arbitrary controls - in the hands of Mr Speaker to suppress any individual or individuals who behave badly. then I think it is fair to say that the government of a country must also have reasonable powers in order that it should also be able to deal with people who are setting out to subvert democracy and to destroy freedom.

The point I am trying to make is that to abandon the rule of law in the name of theoretical freedom will, in fact, often make freedom impossible, and I am sure that when the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Bukit Timah come down from their rosy cloud of rhetoric to the cool thought which I hope they sometimes take, they will realise that law is the basis of freedom and not the enemy of freedom.

The People's Action Party habitually prophesy that dire calamity will follow if anybody does anything that the People's Action Party do not like. The Progressives have sometimes shown a tendency to blow other people's trumpets and to borrow other people's clothes, and they sometimes try to follow the People's Action Party line. I must, however, congratulate the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) who made undoubtedly the best speech we have heard from the Opposition today by a very long way. Although the People's Action Party prophecies have almost invariably proved wrong in the past, they still fret and fume and cry havoc. They still bellow out, "Freedom is in danger! Trade unionism is in danger! Everything is in danger! Vote for the P.A.P.!" It is true that there is danger, but the danger does not lie in the direction which the P.A.P. seeks to indicate. The danger does not stand in the open light of this Assembly and in the open workings of the Government. The danger lurks in the backstreets and in the lorongs; in the network of underground subversion; in intimidation by word and deed, by threat and by murder. The danger lies in the deliberate dissemination of hatred, distrust and falsehood, as conscious and purposeful means of political action. It is to defeat that danger that this Bill is necessary.

Sir,I take another People's Action Party argument to the effect that we have had for seven years the Emergency Regulations and yet we still have Communist crimes. This proves that the best thing to do is to give up the Emergency Regulations because they are ineffective. But in the streets of Singapore, we fairly often have traffic accidents. Is that a reason for giving up the traffic laws? When murder is sometimes committed, is that a reason for abolishing the Police Force? If we find we cannot win immediately, is that a reason for surrendering at once? A more ridiculous argument I have seldom heard!

It is perfectly true that the final answer to Communist activity lies in the political, social and economic sphere, and if hon. Members would like further copies of our Four-Year Programme and our Principles and Aims, they will see that we do not propose the Emergency Regulations as a single thing but that they are one small facet in a very large system -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: A very large facet in that booklet!

Mr Francis Thomas: But large in the eyes of - [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Please continue, Mr Thomas.

Mr Francis Thomas: Sir, perhaps I might remind the People's Action Party of a promise which they gave on the 16th of May. You will recall the significance of that date. There was a long speech dealing with colonialism and the rights of the people that desire freedom and so forth, and it ended with this: "Give us our rights" (that is, our rights to self-government without British control) "and we will fight Communism and defend our freedom." Well, our Chief Minister has moved us very rapidly towards self-government and towards the ending of colonial control. Will the People's Action Party carry out their promise? Will they go out now to the pickets in the streets there and say, "We are opposing the Public Security Bill just for the time being. As soon as we get free self-government, we will support its imposition if the situation warrants it." Will you go out and say that -?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Did I say that just now?

Mr Francis Thomas: On May the 16th, you said that you would fight Communism to defend your freedom when you had your rights -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I do not believe outright oppression will fight them.

Mr Francis Thomas: Nobody suggested that oppression is the sole weapon. I have mentioned that before. I do not think you need be afraid of these pickets outside. I went out myself at twenty-five past two to have a look, and I got very well booed for my pains. Though I stood there for some time, nobody noticed me. I felt rather small and unimportant until, finally, the cheer-leader started booing, and off they went booing. People were booing loudly and vigorously all around me, but they did not know whom they were booing. They did not see me until gradually their eyes learned to focus on me - I walked forward a bit so that they could make sure they knew who I was, and then, at last, the booing began to come into focus. For the first minute or so, the booing was just booing for the fun of booing. I do not think you need get frightened of them. They impressed me as a very friendly and jolly lot, and I am sure that if you go out and speak to them honestly and truly, what has been demonstrated in this Assembly; that their right to strike has been guaranteed by the Chief Minister; and if you say that this Bill will not be used to threaten them; and if you truthfully tell them what the safeguards are, I am sure that they will understand -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Why did you not try just now?

Mr Speaker: Order, please. I take it that the Minister is, in fact, addressing the Chair indirectly?

Mr Francis Thomas: My apologies, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am being so much addressed directly myself that I was perhaps forgetting myself and allowing my remarks to flow in the wrong direction. I have, in any case, arrived at the end of what I have to say.

I will just conclude by repeating again that in this situation in Singapore today, there is a genuine threat, a threat which is clear and obvious, and it should not be twisted, distorted, and misrepresented in the interests of a temporary political popularity. There are more grave issues at stake than that. There are forces in this country which could destroy it. We have our responsibility to the people of the country, and we should carry out that responsibility with the full sense that we are trying to give leadership and guidance where it is very much needed.

Mr Tan Theng Chiang (Rochore): Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Opposition is almost unanimous in their attack on the Public Security Bill. It was only to be expected and it is also natural that they should point out to us that, by introducing this Bill, we are going against our election pledges. However, none of them has taken the trouble to analyse the causes of the wave of strikes we have had in Singapore since the Labour Front took office some six months ago. No one can deny that some strikes at least are inspired by forces which do not have the welfare of the people of Singapore at heart. Nor can anyone deny that there are Communist sympathisers in Singapore. Yet when the Government took the opportunity of the grant of amnesty in the Federation to offer local Communists the chance to surrender themselves, the response has been practically nil.

It has also escaped the notice of our opponents that Singapore is still a Crown Colony and that subversive elements under the cloak of nationalism are fomenting discontent among the innocent citizens of Singapore.

When sovereign Republics such as India, Pakistan and Burma have such laws, there is no reason why we in Singapore, while we are striving for self-government and ultimate independence, should not take measures to maintain law and order, so that the colonial powers may not use any disorder that may prevail in the country as an excuse for delaying the grant of self-government. Anyone who cares for the welfare and well-being of the people of Singapore will not fail to realise the inconvenience and discomfort that they will have to undergo if there is any disruption of essential services.

We are pledged to foster the growth of healthy trade unionism in this country, but can anyone honestly claim that all trade unionists in Singapore are working solely for the benefit of the workers? It is indeed a tragedy that certain professional unionists have infiltrated into some unions with no other motive than to promote their own interests and for their own glorification. Until the workers realise that they are being duped and learn to manage their own affairs, it will be in the interests of the people if the Government take steps to ensure that they are not subjected to unnecessary suffering.

The Bill before the House provides for safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, and if anyone is subjected to such treatment, he can appeal to a Tribunal consisting of two High Court Judges and a District Judge. The Judiciary is independent of the Administration and there need be no fear that such appeals will be treated as a formality.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, our Party, the Progressive Party, has always been realistic in our policy with regard to the Emergency Regulations, and the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) paid us a compliment when he said, by implication, that we were not such political innocents as to have made the mistake which he did when he drafted the Labour Front platform, in thinking that Singapore was ripe for the Emergency to be lifted. Not being so optimistic and being too straightforward, we did not take advantage of the favourable winds created by the shouts of, "Down with the Emergency Regulations!", as a result of which many of our ships did not reach harbour.

However, we do not have to borrow other people's discarded clothing. We are not going to deviate from the course we have set ourselves and have taken so far. We have supported and will continue to support the continuance of these Regulations or other similar laws so long as there is violence, terror and fear in Malaya. But we must also re- member that, as we have infringed upon the rights of individuals, we must see to it that no injustice is perpetrated as a result of these Regulations.

Much as I admire the Chief Minister's efforts to safeguard further the rights of the detainees in that they are now allowed to appeal to a Court of three Judges, whose decision is final and cannot be interfered with by the Executive, I am unable to agree to the surrender of our right which this Legislature has retained for the last seven years, to receive the report of Government and decide whether the circumstances justify the continuance of the powers of detention without trial. I feel that, as an elected Member of this Assembly, it is our duty to decide periodically whether these Regulations have or have not been misused, and that we cannot delegate this power to the Council of Ministers. I maintain that we should not deprive ourselves of this power granted to us since the inception of these Regulations by agreeing to the provisions of this Bill to last for three years instead of three months at a time.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, all the Parties in this Assembly have given their views on the Preservation of Public Security Bill. As an Independent, I know I can speak without fear or favour, without affection or ill-will, from any Members on both Benches -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I hear there is no favour coming.

Mr Nair: Sir, I am very sorry indeed to say that most of us will miss the quarterly review of the Emergency situation by the Chief Secretary and his brilliant speeches from now on. I take this opportunity of congratulating him on his efficiency so far in bringing to the notice of this House the various activities of the terrorists which have been prevalent in Singapore.

Nevertheless, I am bound by the mandate from my electorate who have asked me to convey to this House their demand to release all detained persons up to the time this Bill comes into law, and thus enable them to repose confidence in the new Government's intention to implement the various provisions of the new law. They have asked me to convey this message: the people who are detained under the Emergency Regulations are therefore eligible for pardon. From now on, detentions and arrests will be under the provisions of the new Bill, and they will have to wait and see how far the implementation is carried out in a very fair way. I hope either the Chief Minister or the Chief Secretary will be able to give them an answer in this Assembly.

I have also been told, Sir, to record at this sitting the views of my constituents that they believe in freedom and justice, and therefore they feel that no person should be detained or arrested without letting him know what the charges are. They also realise the present situation and they feel that some sort of extraordinary power should be given to the Executive. They have asked me to convey to this House the fact that they do appreciate the Government's move and that they have no objection to my giving my approval to this Bill.

Mr Goode: On a point of elucidation, Sir. Could I ask the Member for Seletar, who brought us this very interesting message from his constituents, whether he subscribes to their views or not?

Mr Nair: I cannot understand which one. I think I have conveyed several messages. If it is for the demand of the release of detained persons, Sir, it is their view that they should be released straightaway -

Mr Goode: Is it your view?

Mr Nair: Whatever their views are, they are my views as well.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, outside along the picket line, the Labour Front has been described as trying to break an election pledge if we carry this Bill through today, and the hon. Members from the P.A.P. have tried to decry that we, who have given an election pledge, are now trying to break that pledge. The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) read from this blueprint of the Labour Front, but unfortunately the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) was not here. I would therefore ask the indulgence of this House if I quote again from this blueprint of ours for his information and perhaps for his guidance -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You will be surprised! I have studied it better than you -

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Lim. I do not think I can allow a repetition of this nature. If hon. Members choose to be absent from this Assembly, I do not think they should be apprised of what has been said. If the hon. Member now speaking wishes to draw the attention of the Member for Tanjong Pagar to this particular point, I suggest that he lay that booklet on the Table.

The Chief Minister: He can read!

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I wish to repeat this point in order to emphasise once again that the Labour Front does not break its election pledge, and I have that right -

Mr Speaker: I have ruled that the Minister can lay that blue book on the Table.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I was one of the members who sat on this Labour Front Four-Year Programme and it was I who was most insistent in wanting the Emergency Regulations repealed because it was felt, at the time when we were considering this, that the situation in Singapore did not warrant a continuance of these unnecessary and repressive laws. When we were returned to power, I was still of the mind that we should have the Emergency Regulations repealed, but in May, just one month after we were returned to power, Sir, our friends over there, not all may be, but our friends over there, with their friends in the Bus Workers' Union and in other unions, were responsible for the riots of May 12th and responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people. It is because of that, Sir, that I now feel that such Regulations cannot, and should not, be repealed in the interests of public security. If there is any blame to be attached for introducing this Preservation of Public Security Bill, it is because of the activities of people such as those represented by the other side.

Sir, many trade unionists now say that this Bill will react to the detriment of trade unionism, and yet, Sir, since we came into power in April until now, there have been 213 strikes, 162 of which can be attributed to friends of the P.A.P. Can they honestly say that the Emergency Regulations restrict their activities? Can they honestly say that? In 1953 and 1954 - two years - the total amounted to only thirteen strikes as against 213 within five months this year! They say that this law will restrict the freedom of assembly, and yet, since the Labour Coalition Government came into being, we have, I do not know how many times, had pickets outside this Assembly. Is there any restriction on the freedom of assembly? They should ask themselves that, instead of coming here and talking in high-faulting language about restriction on the freedom of trade unionists, restriction on the freedom of association, movement and assembly. I have received this morning a memorandum issued on behalf of 94 trade unions at a meeting held in the premises of the City Council Labour Unions Federation. Can that Federation say, in all honesty, that the Emergency Regulations prevented them from striking last year and this year? They cannot say that! Can they honesty say that the Emergency Regulations were ever used against them in their strikes? They have never been used! The fact is that their strike was a constitutional strike, and there was no reason why the Emergency Regulations should be applied.

Another illustration, Sir. As the Chief Minister has said, Mr Yong Kok Kim, who was the President of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, was charged in open court and was sentenced. Did the Government take any action against the Union? No, he was charged not because of his trade union activities, but he was charged and sent to prison because of his subversive activities. So can they say that the Emergency Regulations or this Preservation of Public Security Bill is aimed at trade unions? Definitely not!

This memorandum I referred to just now, Sir, is signed by Mr Jamit Singh, Secretary to the 94 unions and Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. They called a strike this year. Were the Emergency Regulations ever applied in that strike? No, they were free to strike and, in fact, they were even assisted in their claims by a number of other unions. But did we take action against the other unions? No, because those activities were genuine trade union activities. Therefore, I want to say again and I would ask our friends over there to search their own hearts whether this law was ever used against trade unions.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) said that it would be better if we had stuck to our Emergency Regulations and come back to the Assembly every three months for renewal. Sir, the Chief Minister has said that the security of the public is not an emergency. Therefore it is wrong to describe that as an emergency, and this law that we seek to introduce for three years does not mean that it will live for three years. If a situation arises where there is no further need for it, there will be no need to use the powers given under this law at all. The Chief Minister says, "It is the primary and supreme duty of any government to provide for the safety and security of its citizens", and this Bill, Sir, seeks to provide for that safety and security.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

The Chief Minister: In reply, Sir. If it please you, Sir, of all the speeches we heard this morning from the Opposition, it seems to me the one that really represents the feelings of the decent and loyal citizens of Singapore was the one made by a Nominated Member, the hon. Mr Ong Piah Teng - his repugnance, his keen anxiety, his gratitude for the improvements effected, and his reluctant acceptance. I can assure him that, for our part, there is no question of being pleased about bringing before this Assembly and placing on the Statute book the perpetuation of a law that is an inroad into the democratic process. There is no question about that. We are not proud of having to do it, but in facing our responsibilities, we do have to do it.

Now, much has been made, and that, to my surprise, by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), including every member of his Party, of a suggestion that I have broken faith with my electorate and questioning my political integrity. Sir, it has been suggested that every time we want a measure of this character, we should dissolve the House and go before the public and have fresh elections. It may be that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is even a greater political innocent than he pretends I am, but I must confess that I have never, at any time, read or heard of such a fantastic procedure. I would say to him one thing, Sir - it may be necessary for him and his Party to indulge in that sort of conduct, but for myself, I do not have to wait till the end of the term of this Assembly in order to face my electorate. I face my electorate every day. Cairnhill sits in judgment on Marshall every single day. During the election, and since then - last week was the last time I reiterated it - I have made a solemn promise to the electorate, which no Member opposite has had the courage to do, that if the time ever came when half the voters in my Division decided that they no longer had faith in me, they could ask me to leave. Singapore can speak through Cairnhill today and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. I do not have to go running to my electorate every time I think a measure is necessary for their welfare. I am on trial there every day. There can be no question of breach of faith with my electorate. I do not seek this position against the wishes of the people of the country, Sir, and I should imagine that if hon. Members opposite, one of whom my young friend the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) has so ostentatiously refused to answer the question as to where his loyalty lies - whether it is to Singapore or to Communism - I should imagine that it is not beyond their capacity to organise a petition - if they really had any faith in the suggestion that the people of Singapore or the people of Cairnhill would want to reject me because of this law which I now think necessary to introduce for their welfare. Sir, these gentlemen, who have seen fit to question my integrity, and particularly the Member for Tanjong Pagar, have indulged in a bit of sophistry that it is impossible to square -

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Chief Minister. I think the word "sophistry" is probably not parliamentary. Will you please withdraw it?

The Chief Minister: Indeed, Sir, I do apologise if you think the word "sophistry" is not parliamentary. I certainly withdraw it, but, Sir, I would like to refer to the action of the Member for Tanjong Pagar who, recognising the existence in every Asian territory of laws of preventive detention and arrest, comes along here and, Sir, may I use the word?, quibbles about the right of the Colony to pass laws for its protection. If that is the extent of the intellectual integrity of the P.A.P., I do not admire it.

Now, Sir, if I may take the speeches of the Opposition in their order, the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) - apart from this question of breaking my election pledge and the threat of what will happen when I face my electorate, forgetting that I face it every day - has suggested that the Bill is a threat to trade unionists and could easily be interpreted as being in the interest of capital. Sir, the Communists could interpret anything into anything as it suits them. Red is black and filth is something you can eat and shove down the throats of the poor workers. These are men whose hearts are pickled in vinegar and whose ears are deaf to decency. I will not try to convince them, and I do not care how they interpret my actions; and as for the suggestion that we threaten trade unions, it ill becomes a trade unionist, who must be conscious of the way trade unionism has flourished in the past five and a half months, to make such a charge against this Government - five and a half months, Sir. I agree, not previously -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Cannot give credit to them, can you?

The Chief Minister: Would you? The Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) had nothing to say but give a parrot repetition of the threat of what will happen to us when we meet the people of Singapore. Then we come to the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) whose speech and whose future speeches must now be viewed in the light of his unhappy refusal to inform this House and the people of Singapore of where his loyalty lies. He has told us, Sir, that this is a colonial law, that it is a betrayal of the interests of the people for the interests of colonialism, and that it is an enemy of democratic liberties. Well, Sir, I should like for a moment to envisage what would happen - and I hope that those who are from India here will forgive me - if this were repeated in India which has an identical law. I take it then, by analogy, that India is introducing and perpetuating a colonial law for the betrayal of the people of the country in the interest of colonialism and that India is an enemy of democratic liberties. It will be remembered that the Bill before the House is far more liberal than the law that has been and is in force in India.

Then he said, Sir, "What public security can there be when a man can - be arrested and detained without trial?" Has he stopped to think what public security can there be when police officers can be shot to death and witnesses killed and intimidated - which is happening and which has happened - what public security can there be?

Then, we come, Sir, to the pink barbiturates of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is good, is it not?

The Chief Minister: I do not care for drugs! He asks how we expect to solve and cure Communism with repressive measures when the past eight years have proved that those measures cannot achieve that end. The answer, Sir, is this: The Emergency Regulations of the past and the Public Security Bill of today will not cure this country of Communism. All it can do is to contain it, to lessen its possible effect until such time as the tender growth of democracy in this territory is sufficiently strong and flourishing that the forces of evil and their vitriolic hatred, which pours out of them like sap out of a rubber tree, cease to have the vicious effects they have in blinding the people of the country to their true welfare. That is all this Bill is expected to do.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) has made somewhat serious charges against members of the Police Force and asks us to view them with suspicion. Sir, it is this Force which protects his life, his safety, his property and his honour. It is this Force which makes it possible for him and for the rest of us in this country to walk about in peace, without fear of molestation, and I feel it comes ill to make accusations of so vague a character about the Force which has proved itself worthy of our gratitude in times of stress and in times of peace. If he has complaints with any basis, it is surely a matter of elementary courtesy and decency that the details should have been communicated to the Chief Secretary or to myself and investigated? I trust, Sir, that he will, at a not too distant future, take an opportunity either to withdraw those unhappy allegations or to substantiate them. It is easy to attack those who cannot hit you back, and I feel that that is not a gesture which the Member for Serangoon would care to make.

Now, one novel suggestion comes from the Member for Seletar. He asks us now that we have got this new Bill to release the old criminals. I do not know where the logic is, but I would like to assure him that his suggestion has certainly given me an idea and perhaps we can work it out in Committee. Perhaps we can work out, Sir, a provision whereby those who have been detained in the past can be given the full protection of the provisions of the present Ordinance, including the right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal in spite of having failed in their past appeals. I am not promising anything except that I would like to consider that idea which he has given us today.

One final thing, Sir, and it comes as a surprise to me: it is that not a single Member opposite, in considering the provisions of this Bill, has seen fit to refer to our duty to the Federation - not one. The Federation, it seems, does not exist when it comes to indulging in political manoeuvring but we, On this side of the House, have a sense of responsibility and we will not forget our duty to those across the Straits.

Nor has any single Member of the Opposition suggested how we can meet this threat to the security of the people and of the individual without extra-judicial powers. It is so easy to criticise and it is distressing to see how little of what is constructive has come forward today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day?

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Sir, the 12th of October.