PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, at the Second Reading of this Bill last month I maintained that such laws should be in force for a period of three months only, so that after that period Members of the Legislative Assembly would have the right to say whether these Emergency laws should be continued or not. As the Assembly, however, has approved the Bill in principle and it will become part of our laws, subject to amendment this morning, I now move an amendment that the duration of this Bill be for one year instead of three years. I do not wish to repeat what I said at the last sitting of this Assembly, but I must point out that our job is not only to pass new laws but also to see that the existing laws are properly enforced by the Executive without favour or ill-will. The fact that each year Government has to come to us and give an account of these special powers entrusted to them before they are extended for another year will act as a safeguard for the public against possible misuse of these powers by over-zealous officers.

As this Bill vitally affects the man-in-the-street, I consulted many members of the public and they all agreed with me that it is necessary to have such laws at the present moment, when there are not only subversive activities against law and order, but there is also a definite increase in assault by gangsters, extortion and even kidnapping.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What has that got to do with this?

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: That is against law and order.

The Chairman: If hon. Members want to raise points of order, please do so in the proper way.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: The only request is that these laws should not be made permanent or for too long a period. Those whom I consulted agreed with me that the maximum period should be for one year. Hon. Members of the P.A.P. will, no doubt, say that I only contacted one section of the public. It happens that I reside in Tanglin and I suppose they will say I only contacted my Tanglin friends, but that is not true. I have -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You have gone slumming?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Yes, I have gone slumming in the district of Paya Lebar -

The Chief Minister: And never met the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew)!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Thank God for that!

The Chairman: Order, please. I must ask for order in this House in the consideration of this Bill, which seems to me to be quite a serious Bill.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Well, as I said, that is not true. I have consulted my constituents and that is the view they gave me. Indeed, this view has been confirmed by many Members of this Assembly who did not take part in the rallies of the past week.

Sir, I move,

On page 1, line 9, to leave out "three years from the date of commencement" and insert "one year from the date of commencement and for any further period of one year for which it may be continued by resolution of the Legislative Assembly".

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, in rising to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend, I wish to make it quite clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that we of the Progressive Party reluctantly but firmly agree with the main principles contained in the seven Bills before us in the Committee stage today, subject to the amendments we have tabled. I say "reluctantly", because it is a tragedy that such legislation should be required at all.

I trust that I am not being irrelevant in saying once again that we would have preferred to see the Emergency Regulations retained and not embodied in the ordinary laws of this country, for one salient reason: that Regulations which are extraordinary, and which are repugnant for the very reason that they are extraordinary, should come up for periodical review by this Assembly, for the Government to render an account of its stewardship in respect of them, and for the elected representatives of the people to decide whether or not the Government have made out a case for their continuation. However, the hon. Members opposite have decided otherwise. Their majority have carried the day, and our task as a responsible Opposition Party, having accepted the principle of this Bill as an unpleasant necessity, is to seek ways and means to improve it by amendment.

I would be willing to agree that my hon. Friends opposite have been at pains to present a Bill which, in some respects, is an improvement on the previous Regulations, and to point out that it is fair and less stringent than those in force in India, Pakistan and Burma; but these arguments are, to a large extent, nullified if a Bill, which it is agreed is of a temporary nature required for emergency reasons, is to be given a life of three years without any opportunity for periodical review as to its continued necessity. Let me remind the hon. Gentlemen opposite of one thing. They were, Sir, of the opinion - to use the Hon. the Chief Minister's own words - that they could "sweep away the entire structure of the Emergency Regulations", although for years the permanent Executive had been giving good and convincing reasons every three months why they were essential to the peace and good order of this country. They have had the candour to admit that they were wrong, and, in fairness, we must commend that candour; but in view of this, is it reasonable for a popularly-elected Government to swing almost to the other extreme and ask for debate on their operation of these two new Ordinances to be put in cold storage for three years?

The dangers of such a length of time should be obvious. We of the Progressive Party are anxious to ensure that the people of this country - and by that I mean the 95 per cent law-abiding good citizens of this country - are reminded at regular intervals that these laws have been enacted for a particular purpose to fight a particular battle. We cannot say too firmly and too often that these Emergency Regulations, or rather laws, as they will now be, are intended to protect all law-abiding citizens who have nothing whatever to fear from them.

If the people are not regularly reminded of this truth, many will, through ignorance and inability to think clearly for themselves, become a prey to the insidious propaganda of the Malayan Communist Party, or of the travelling circus of tub-thumpers of the People's Action Party who try to hoodwink the unwary into thinking that they are being oppressed. On this ground alone, therefore, I think that the Government will be making a grave mistake if they reject our amendment and refuse to have their actions weighed and examined at the end of a year, so that the ordinary man-in-the-street can be reminded of the dangers which surround him, if these dangers still exist, as I fear they may well be.

Let me turn to another point. Nobody on the Government Benches will disagree with me when I say that these Bills before us are no better than limited preventive measures - not measures designed to remove the evil influences that are in our midst - but only to hold them in check. To revert to an old saying - Cure is better than prevention in the grave problems which face the Government. And we are entitled to ask this: If we give the Government carte blanche for three years to use these preventive measures, what guarantee have we that curative measures will not be neglected? What better guarantee could we have but that this House, and through this House the people, should be informed at least once a year of what positive curative measures the Government is adopting to cleanse the body politic? By demanding, Sir, an annual review of this Bill, we want to ensure not merely that the Government is operating it fairly and justifiably, but we also want to ask what positive measures they have taken to render its continuation unnecessary at the earliest possible moment.

The Hon. the Chief Secretary has said that it is hoped that the measures would only be for a limited period during which the citizens of Singapore may "learn by experience to distinguish between liberty and licence, between good leaders and bad leaders". This is just the point. An annual review of this Bill will make it necessary for Government to render an account of what positive steps they have taken to educate the people of Singapore into making this distinction. This is something which an Opposition Party has every right to demand of the hon. Members opposite.

Let me elaborate this point. Of the famous Four Freedoms which form perhaps the best definition of a free world and a free democratic country, I believe that Singapore is most sorely in need of freedom from fear, freedom from intimidation by gangsters, thugs and their agents, freedom from the threat of the consequence of speaking one's own mind.

I believe that if the men and women of this country had the confidence to speak out what they know and what they feel, without threat of reprisals, this island would be turned in a very short time into the sunny happy country which most of us wish it to be.

But because intimidation makes this impossible, unfortunately a large percentage of the law-abiding people have an ingrained distrust of all set in authority over them - whether it is the unlicensed threatening authority of the gangster, or the licensed protective sheltering authority of the police force - here again it is necessary to educate the people to learn to distinguish, and a heavy responsibility lies with the first popularly-elected Government to tackle this problem with the utmost resolution. Equally, it is the responsibility of an Opposition Party like ourselves to keep the Government on their toes in this respect.

We do not expect this fundamental Singapore problem to be solved in a year or even in the lifetime of one government; but we do ask that we should be given an annual account of what is being done - not in the form of social services or social legislation which is one aspect of it - but in the context of the Emergency Bill, and that we should have the right to criticism if we feel that more effort is needed.

Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister, during his speech on this Bill in this House, in inviting amendments for its improvement, stated:

"We would be glad to consider each and every suggestion, and would gladly accept any improvements which do not destroy the basic needs."

In the light of this statement, I do not believe that the Government can fail to accept this amendment. Many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite have had the courage to swallow a part of their election platforms - a not too indigestible operation, I hope - and I trust that they will now have the courage and the wisdom to subject their handling of the considerable powers asked for in this Bill to the closest scrutiny of this House in a year's time. I trust that, if by any mischance this amendment is rejected, it will not be because of the threats of the People's Action Party. I hope, Sir, that the hon. Members opposite will not seek refuge in the argument that the anti-social demonstrations of this group prove only too clearly that this Bill is necessary - every sensible citizen knows that - and that we should therefore not quibble about a little matter of two years.

I repeat, we wish to support - indeed it is our duty in the interests of Singapore to support - the main principles of this Bill, but we regret that we cannot go all the way with the Government on this particular measure, because we feel very strongly of the correctness of our stand. Let it also be noted that we do not ask for a three-month period but a halfway house of one year, because we consider that the Ordinance must have that much life.

My constituents in the rural area in the Tanglin Division - and they by far outnumber those in the residential area - are in favour of this Bill so long as there are safeguards and so long as, in other words, it protects them and can be seen to protect them. I understand this to be true of my colleagues in their constituencies, as I have no doubt it is true of the majority of the constituencies, though I have also no doubt that the constituencies of Tanjong Pagar and Bukit Timah must be entirely different. It so happens that the Tanglin Division borders that of Bukit Timah for a considerable distance along the Bukit Timah/Clementi Roads, and if the people on each side of the border think so differently, I can only suppose - though I have not seen it - that there must be a fence along it, or perhaps one of those nice new non-anti-Communist curtains! No doubt, the hon. Member will enlighten us. But, because the kampong dwellers in Tanglin think as they do, I want them to continue to be convinced and not to be misled.

Let us remember not only that the price of peace is eternal vigilance, but also that the test of just and democratic government is eternal vigilance. Without vigilance there can be no peace and no democratic government. Not only, Sir, must the Government opposite watch their own handling of the considerable powers this Bill gives them, but they must give the Opposition the fullest opportunity to share their watchfulness. Only in this manner can the rights of the people and the way of democracy be served.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Chairman, Sir, by their admission, the Labour Front Coalition Government, in presenting this Bill, accepts the fact that this is a temporary measure. One fails to understand, however, why this Government considers a three-year period as temporary.

To give wide powers of detention and search to the Police is against all democratic ideals and principles. With the advent of self-government, the people were led to believe that a more democratic form of government would eventually be with us. The Public Security Bill seeks to curtail individual freedom of speech and movement. Admittedly, there are certain features introduced in this Bill which are improvements over the Emergency Regulations, such as the right of appeal and the chance of review after detention; this Bill, nevertheless, imposes restrictions on the people and as such it is repugnant to our concepts of freedom and the principle of the rights of individual to due process of law.

My Party and I stand solidly against any infringement and curtailment of the sanctity of the individual, but, we are ready to admit that the present days are difficult days, and it may be necessary to introduce urgent and adequate measures to take care of the present unrest, and that opportunities for nefarious elements to jeopardise public security be nipped in the bud. My Party and I are not convinced that this state of affairs would last three years; and if it should last three years, then the present Government could not be said to have done a good job on behalf of the people. I therefore strongly support the amendment moved by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck).

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Chief Minister must always have the last word!

The Chief Minister: This is my Bill!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, my Party does not quibble and wobble and compromise. The Progressive Party speaks of the "repugnant provisions of this Bill". The Democratic Party says it is "undemocratic". Then, from that stand, they qualify and qualify, retreat and retreat, until they say, "If you make it one year, then we agree."

Mr Chairman, Sir, we in the People's Action Party believe that it is no use saying that if we remove these Regulations, then we shall have chaos and destruction and that we shall have the Malayan Communist Party ruling Singapore. They are not in a position, nor are we in a position, to judge how events will ultimately unfold themselves.

The Chief Minister: It needs only a little intelligent anticipation.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "A little intelligent anticipation" would indicate to the Chief Minister that a volte-face could only lead to disillusionment and defeat. If we believe in freedom, then we must concede that same freedom even to those who do not honour it in the way we do. Further, if we want freedom to survive in this part of the world, then we must live it and not just talk it. If you want the people of Singapore to fight for democracy and freedom, it is no use telling them, "Ah! but one day we shall have this freedom, when we have destroyed Communism, when we have destroyed the P.A.P., and when we have destroyed any force which threatens to bring about a social revolution."

I can well imagine the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) hoping that there is a belt between him and Bukit Timah, because I can well imagine that he and his Party are not capable of standing up and fighting for freedom. They only stand up and fight for their own vested interests, to preserve a Singapore in which they, the fortunate few, have a comfortable niche. Any change which threatens to dislodge them from that niche must be fought. I may be wrong in believing that if you fight for freedom, and you live freedom, you will not be destroyed. But I would say that those who have given a pledge to bring freedom to us have no right to come here and quibble between three years and one year, or three months and one month. If what is wrong for three years can be made right because it is one year, then I say there is something gravely wrong with the logical faculties of those in the Progressive and the Democratic Parties. We are against this Bill in toto. We are not here seeking amendments to mitigate the harshness of this Bill. A lot of words have been said -

The Chief Minister rose -

The Chairman: Point of order, Mr Chief Minister?

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Mr Chairman, Sir. If he is not speaking to the amendment, would he let others who wish to, have their say?

The Chairman: Your point of order being?

The Chief Minister: My point of order being that he is certainly not speaking to the amendment, and in those circumstances I respectfully suggest that he should not be permitted to continue to take up the time of this Assembly.

The Chairman: It has vaguely entered my mind that possibly the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. Perhaps he will come to the point now?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, if one comes to the point too soon, one destroys the pleasant prospect of holding the Labour Front in suspense. The Labour Front, of course, would like to rush through this Bill with the greatest possible speed. My point as regards this amendment is this - that it is hypocritical -

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: A lot has been said -

The Chairman: Order, please. The word "hypocritical" is not parliamentary. Will you withdraw it, please?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, I must bow to your ruling, and I therefore withdraw it. May I say that if it is not hypocritical, then it is something very akin to it!

Mr Chairman, Sir, we must make our stands clear. As even the Member for Tanglin has said, we must educate the people. If we want to educate the people, we must have decisive, clear-cut stands, which the people can understand. I would like to remind him that quibbles and wobbles between three years and one year will never help to educate anyone except those with sophisticated minds like the members of the Progressive Party, their friends and fellow travellers.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am considerably attracted by the arguments in favour of this amendment. I will say quite frankly that from the first, when I received it - representations from the Trades Union Congress, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, private representations from the hon. Members of the Progressive Party - it seemed to have considerable validity, and in truth it still has. There is good sense in saying that a law, which, though immeasurably improving the existing laws, is, nevertheless, one that is of preventive arrest and detention, should be under the constant and watchful eye of this Assembly. I would say this to hon. Members: that if it were only a question of a review by this Assembly, I would never place any obstacle in its way whatsoever, any obstacle in the exercise of its complete powers of control over the Government. But that is not what is really in issue, because whether the Bill is for one year or for three years, this House has at all times powers to question at every sitting; powers of motions on adjournment; powers of motion for repeal; and even powers of compelling repeal by Members' Bills. So its powers of control are completely unrestricted, and at any time that hon. Members may require the Chief Secretary, or any other Member of the Government, to answer for his conduct, they have only to table a motion and to call for a debate. We have never in the past obstructed, and certainly never will in the future, Sir - this is not a matter in our hands, it is in yours - obstruct hon. Members in the exercise of their legitimate powers of control of Government. Although desirous of meeting a valued request for periodical review, I would suggest to Members that perhaps a periodical review is not the answer; they should retain rather in mind their powers to call for a review in the normal course.

Sir, recent weeks have brought to light somewhat forcibly the extent to which the worker of Singapore and others can be duped by the forces of destruction. It must be remembered that the common man of Singapore has, in the past, had but little opportunity for education; has, in the past, had genuine grounds for grievances against the Government; has, in the past, learnt to be embittered towards Government. In the words of the Member for Tanglin they are traditionally "agin the Government". Therefore, Sir, the common man of Singapore is easy prey to cleverly manipulated, dishonest political propaganda aimed at destroying democratic government.

You have read, Sir, reports in the Press of meetings held condemning this Bill - meetings held by P.A.P. unions. Gullible reporters have exaggerated the attendances at these meetings, no doubt receiving the figures from thoroughly dishonest organisers -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Radio Malaya included?

The Chief Minister: Radio Malaya can be gullible, just as you can and I. But some of the statements, Sir, are significant of the receptivity of the common man in Singapore to Hitlerian falsehoods. It was, I believe, Hitler who laid down the principle that the bigger the lie, and the more often you repeat it, the more certain you are that it will be believed. Some of these lies, Sir, say that this Bill is aimed at wrecking the trade union movement and murdering trade unionists. These are the people who were on the same platform as the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The trade union movement, Sir, has never flourished more than it has flourished under my Government. It has never had more power; it has never had more freedom; it has never had more protection, even for the dishonest. The only danger to trade unionism comes from the dishonest professional agitators who have never been labourers in their lives, but take paid posts as agitators in P.A.P. trade unions. As for murdering trade unionists, Sir, I will just draw your attention to it to indicate the extent to which these plague-carrying rats can carry their falsehoods. They do not wince from lies, Sir. Lies are part of their daily bread. They will tell you that they are not pro-Communists; they are not anti-Communists; they are not Communists; whatever lies best suit them - lies every one! By lies they live, and lies have ridden the streets these past weeks.

Another of their lies from public platforms, on which the hon. Member sat - two hon. Members sitting opposite - is that any detective can arrest anyone and detain him for two years. I repeat - any detective can arrest anyone and detain him for two years. Nothing about the fact that he can only be detained by order of the Council of Ministers; that he can only continue to be detained by order of the Tribunal of Judges; that you have to have that detention reviewed every six months. The Council of Ministers has to look at the case every six months. This, it seems, is worse than the Emergency Regulations! They are welcome to the Emergency Regulations, if they want them. "Singapore is a jail with no difference whether you are in or out." Some of those persons who spoke have experience, and I trust they will one day give me an opportunity for giving them further experience.

The extent of the falsehoods in public, without shame, no mincing of these foul lies - that is the technique employed on platforms on which the hon. Members opposite have stood. The attack has been concentrated on the Labour Front Government. It seems these men are too great cowards to attack the U.M.N.O.-M.C.A. Alliance which is part of our coalition. It is the Coalition Government that is solidly behind this Bill. It was seconded by a member of the Malay Union, and I shall call for a division to prove that it is no Labour Front measure, but an honest measure of an honest government seeking to protect the honest citizen, seeking even to protect the scum that organised the meetings of which we have heard.

They have challenged - and the Press has carried the challenge - that they would ask me to a meeting in Cairnhill, and then they discovered that there was no place in Cairnhill -

The Chairman: Order, Mr Chief Minister. Your speech seems also to be bordering on a Second Reading speech.

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I regret that you should have that impression. I think I am entitled to point out that the conduct of recent weeks has shown the danger of an annual recurrence of such dishonest conduct. If you permit me, Sir, and if it please you - no place in Cairnhill, Sir, to meet me - no place at all - a division where I had campaigned day in and day out for more than two months. They could not find a place. They could not invite me to any other meetings.

Then you had that dangerous farce of the woman and child - a woman screaming that she had not been allowed to see her detainee husband; that he went and she was left all alone. "And here is my child who has never seen him!" And she sat on the same platform as these hon. Gentlemen! "We shall fight to the death to the last man, till the child sees its father!" So that is what they want for Singapore - death to the last man! That is the sort of dishonesty, Sir, which can work up uneducated and simple workers into a state, which, with just a word, can create worse violence than even we have seen.

There are thousands of men in jails all over the world, Sir, who have children under the age of two. Does that mean that we should abolish the prison system? There are thousands of women whose husbands are in jail. Does that mean we should abolish jails? The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) proudly carrying a baby and saying, "Look! He has never seen his father!" Who prevented him from seeing his father? It is this dishonest conduct, Sir, which Government is disturbed to note. We are disturbed by these activities of dishonest agitators who seek to organise unrest, which can at the appropriate time break out in violence.

It is true we have had - and let us make a note and be grateful for - a large group of labour in the organisation of the Trades Union Congress which has reacted with responsibility. They do not, like the P.A.P. trade unions, ask the world to put black bands on to mourn the death of truth - for it is the death of truth that they seek, and that they perpetrate. Though the Trades Union Congress has shown itself responsible, there are many responsible persons, Sir, even in this very House, who have been enmeshed by Communist and pro-Communist propaganda.

You have read in the Press, Sir, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has suggested that half a million people should shout so that my hair should fall out. I have a lot of hair. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar and every one of his supporters were to pluck a souvenir for himself, I trust that I will still have the decency and the courage to seek honestly the welfare of this country, without fear of the intimidation of the streets that he seeks to bring into this Chamber.

The hon. Members opposite, Sir, said not one word about our duty to our brothers in the Federation - not one word as to how we can throw open Singapore - the backdoor of the Federation - and let in people who would be a threat to their security. Even if we ourselves were to go down, to them it does not matter. If our brother says to you, "Do not leave open the door for burglars", the answer of the P.A.P. is to kick him in the belly.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is not a parliamentary description, Mr Chairman, Sir.

The Chief Minister: "Belly" is a good old English word, and I repeat it - kick him in the belly!

The Chairman: Order, please.

The Chief Minister: We have seen, Sir, May the 13th turned into a bloody anniversary by persons closely associated with the P.A.P.; and I say, Sir, that to have this annual review at a fixed time is to give an opportunity for annual bloody anniversaries. I say, Sir, that much as I am attracted - and though frankly in the normal course I would have been too happy to accede to what is a legitimate request - it is a danger to the health of the people if we ourselves were to encourage and give an opportunity to these plague-carrying rats to infect the people of the Colony every year. Let them create their own opportunities.

It is with reluctance that I brought in this Bill. I take pleasure in the improvements it has made in the existing laws. But I take no pleasure in perpetuating a law that is, however improved, still a breach in the rule of law. I take no pleasure in refusing hon. Members opposite this request for an annual review, but I say that it is not really a refusal of an annual review - they can have their annual review by tabling a motion at any time. I only say: we must not ourselves consciously place the people, whose welfare is in our hands, in our hands, in annual jeopardy, as would happen if we were to accept the amendment.

Question, "That the words 'three years from the date of commencement' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived.