MEETING WITH M. C. P. REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS EMERGENCY SETTLEMENT

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion which stands in my name,

That this House considers it in the best interests of the country that all political parties in the Assembly should meet the M.C.P. representatives to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency in order to bring peace and constitutional progress.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no one, sitting in this Assembly for the last five days, would imagine that there is a revolution going on in Malaya at this very moment, a revolution which has had violent ups and downs for the last eight years. At no time during these eight years, Sir, has a more favourable moment been reached to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency than now.

There are three strong forces today in Malaya - Colonialism, Communism, and Nationalism. The first two are supported by armed forces. The British have the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. The Communists have what they call their Malayan People's Liberation Army. Only the nationalists have no armies or other armed might. The British are supported by all those who have made comfortable niches for themselves within the existing colonial system - people who fear a sudden change because it might upset their comfortable homes, their comfortable businesses and their comfortable lives. The Communists have the support of a good number of squatters and labourers, and they have working amongst these masses, men who believe that Communism is the answer to the social and economic ills of the country.

But the large mass of the people of this country are nationalists. They have learnt to hate a colonial Malaya because it has degraded them and lost them their self-respect. It has not given them a world in which they can live as self-respecting human beings in a peaceful and happy society, where the wealth of the country is developed for the benefit of the people of the country and not for the benefit of those who, for reasons of military might, have taken political control of this territory. Unlike the Communists, this large group has no fixed, definite ideas of what they want to do with an independent Malaya. They are large amorphous forces. Some believe that the answer lies in a militant Malayan nationalism around which they can rally all the forces in this country - the masses that we have heard spoken of so often even in this Assembly. Most respectable and conservative Members have, all of a sudden, come to realise that it is the masses who will decide whether this country survives, after the period of colonial rule is over, as an independent, democratic Malaya, or as a Communist Malaya. Some favour a broadly-based Socialist Malaya, democratic and tolerant of other political ideals and political ideas, based somewhat on the Indian Nationalist movement which solved the colonial problems in India.

For the last eight years, the armed fight against colonialism has been led by the Malayan Communist Party. In that fight, the British have tried to rally the people on what they call the side of law and order. Successive Generals have always said that if only they could get the people to give them information and help, they could squash this Emergency in a matter of months. They have not squashed this Emergency in a matter of eight years. So long as the people feel that this is not their war, that this is a fight, not for them but for colonialism, they will not lift a finger. Even if there were no threat, no intimidation, no reprisals from the Communists, they would still not bestir themselves for one side or the other, because most ordinary people like to play safe. Even in this little Assembly, we see so very often, when decisions are taken, how Members in this Assembly play safe, and most of the people in Malaya are that way inclined.

Today, we have reached the crossroads. A phase has passed or is passing. There is a stalemate in this war. The Communists cannot establish their Communist Malaya. The British have declared no fixed and definite policy. They have vaguely referred to their intentions of self-government ultimately within the British Commonwealth. It has not captured anybody's imagination. Nobody has been stirred by these words. The position in the constitutional field is very fluid, more fluid in Singapore than it is in the Federation. The difference, however, is not as great as one would imagine if one just compared the external manifestations in the last few months after the elections. Singapore has gone through a period of stress, turmoil, strikes and lockouts. The Federation has been relatively calm. This may lead some people to believe that conditions in the Federation are completely different from those existing in Singapore. I find it difficult to subscribe to this view, for the simple reason that if the basic discontents were not there, the Malayan Communist Party could not have survived. The basic conditions for discontent have not manifested themselves openly in civil commotion because of military suppression and a more militant armed administration. But, I believe the Federation is by and large in the same position as the Colony of Singapore, with this one difference. The ratio of population between the native races of Singapore and the Federation perhaps makes the balance in the Federation more in favour of slow progress - not revolutionary progress but evolutionary - because, by and large, Tunku Abdul Rahman and large, U.M.N.O. movement have inculcated, or perhaps they have just expressed, the innate inclinations of the Malays for evolutionary progress.

The Communists, on the other hand, realise that the internal and international position of the country has changed since Geneva. The theme is peaceful co-existence. Since Bandung, the emphasis in South-East Asia has been peaceful co-existence. No one wants to precipitate a third world war. Everyone wants time to consolidate, perhaps for peace, perhaps for some eventual conflict which might burn up the whole world. That is beyond us and we cannot worry ourselves with that. But it affects the policy of the Malayan Communist Party in Malaya. They cannot completely ignore the fact that the line today throughout the whole world is peaceful co-existence, not the existence of one to the exclusion of the other.

In Malaya, with the elections in April in Singapore and in July in the Federation, the constitutional field entered into a new phase. For the first time, there were wide popular elections which has thrown up in its first flush a great deal of wild, irresponsible talk - and this particularly from the business communities - that the country is going to pieces and that the people are not ready for this independence even in an attenuated version and that, in fact, it would only lead to chaos. But it has opened up a phase which the Communists cannot ignore. It means that the constitutional struggle may yield further results. It means that if an armed conflict is persisted in willy-nilly, regardless of the constitutional position and the political parties representing the people constitutionally, a very difficult position may arise for them at a later stage. Hence, at a dramatic moment on May 1st, Labour Day, the first peace offer was made.

Sir, to those of us who have not faced this problem as closely and as acutely as I have faced it - and I have faced it because I have not wasted my time talking about footling things and doing the silly things which some political parties which existed in the period of the vacuum between 1948 and 1954 did - it is an enormous problem. Enormous because in Malaya, Communism came before nationalism. Enormous because in those 32 odd years since the Malayan Communist Party established itself in Malaya, it has actively preached its philosophy as an answer to the political, economic and social injustices of which there were plenty, and of which there are still plenty in Malaya. The large mass of the people, although they hate the political injustices, the poverty, the social and economic injustices are ap- prehensive of the rigours and the discipline which a Communist Malaya would impose. But if they are faced with the alternative of a continuation of the colonial system, however streamlined, and a Communist Malaya, which is going to be effective and honest even if it is rigid and disciplined and illiberal, I fear that a large mass of the people, who have not the time to bother about liberal concepts of the freedom of the individual - liberty, freedom from arrest without trial, the right of free speech - because they are too preoccupied with making a living, would choose Communism. For them, it does not matter what it is. Communism, Nationalism, and Fascism mean nothing to the vast masses who are in such a state of poverty that nothing makes any meaning except more food, more clothes, a house and a better life. It is in that perspective, that the problem of the Emergency is not one of shooting and killing a few thousand Communists that I speak on my motion.

Our Chief Minister, despite his faults, is not an unintelligent man. In fact, no less a person than the Secretary of State for the Colonies has proclaimed him a highly intelligent individual! And I must be careful not to differ from that opinion. I think he realises today, what he did not realise at the time when he first entered politics, and when he first became the Chief Minister, that the problem is not just a question of passing legislation - 44-hour working week to 42-hour working week to 40-hour working week; fixing a minimum wage; making speeches to trade unions at trade union rallies. The problem is one of convincing the people that a particular way of life can not only bring economic relief but can also introduce into the country a liberal form of human society which we believe we should try to establish in this country. But where I differ from the Hon. the Chief Minister is that he believes that Communism is absolutely evil - he hates it, he hates every aspect of it, and he would fight it. He would support colonialism; he would support capitalism; he would support anything to fight Communism. I do not support that view because I do not believe that it is a simple question of black and white. I have been a bit longer in the political milieu of the country than the Hon. the Chief Minister, and I can claim to be able to understand, perhaps more than he can, the other point of view - the point of view of a man or a group of men in this society completely excluded from the system - bitter and hostile, feeling emotionally hostile enough to engage in violent revolution.

When the Hon. the Chief Minister spoke of this lovely island of ours and when the hon. Mr Sutherland was quick to interject and remind us that it is all man-made, I often wondered if they would say it was a lovely island if they had a little shanty of a shack in Trafalgar Street, to which the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has often gone with me. One little room for bedroom, an outdoor kitchen, a communal bathroom. There one lives, eats, sleeps and dies - in filth and in squalor. They work in the Singapore Harbour Board, which supplies them with electricity at night, and sometimes on public holidays in the day-time. When there is no electricity on a public holiday like Deepavali, they look for their elected representative to make representations to get electricity for them. Those are the small mercies they look for out of this constitution. The Minister for Housing and I have been down there together many a time and have looked at the higgledy-piggledy houses, the barracks, the squalor, the slum. We give them our sympathy, we make promises, but nothing has been done and nothing is likely to be done in the coming year. There is no provision for it in the Estimates. And we are asking them to believe in democracy, to believe that the process of putting a mark on a piece of ballot paper within the constitution of this Colony can bring relief. It is because I understand that side of the problem that I do not agree with the Hon. the Chief Minister in his violently anti-Communist stand. I cannot in all honesty say that Communism is a diabolical evil, because I can imagine certain human societies where it was a great relief to have the Communists displace a ruling power. That is another of the very difficult problems we face in this country. To some 600 million Chinese, that philosophy was the answer and is the answer to a decadent, a corrupt and an evil society which has become evil because men have lost their self-respect and lost their values. But I do not believe however that they want to see in Malaya a similar dictatorship of the proletariat or dictatorship of the Communist Party. If I did believe that, then perhaps I would retire from politics and go and plant vegetables, for that would be the most innocuous thing that I would do in a Communist Malaya. But at the same time, as long as the fight in Malaya is a three-cornered one between the British, the Nationalists and the Communists, there is with every passing day, a drift away from an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. Sometimes people do not believe what I say because they do not want to believe it, because they do not want to be shaken out of their complacency and the comfortable little niches they have made for themselves in this society.

It is not possible at any peace talks to take the line that the Hon. the Chief Minister has taken - that if we have Communism in Malaya, then we shall die; that we live because we are part of the free world; that we live because we sell our service to the free world; that if the Communists take over, we will die and we will starve. Therefore, he appeals to their sense of logic and decency, that they should not take over and that they should all pack up and go back to China, and those of them who do not wish to go back to China can be detained in some rehabilitation and corrective training camp. I do not think those who have spent eight years, nine years, sometimes more, as anonymous revolutionaries, giving their lives, dedicating it to a revolution which they believe is the answer to the evils of our society, can be persuaded to believe that it will kill Singapore. I do not think one could reach a settlement with the Malayan Communist Party if one postulates for all time, "You can never take part in the political life of this country. You can never preach your creed. You are forever proscribed." A settlement on that basis can never be reached. I may be wrong, but I do believe that a settlement could be reached in which the immediate object of an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya could be achieved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can say for all time that Malaya is to be Communist, anti-Communist, or non-Communist. No one would be foolish enough to do so. The future is determined by many factors beyond our control. There are three factors in this political set-up - political, economic and social. The political urge in postwar Malaya is to get rid of the British; to get rid of foreign rule, in any shape, in any form; to get rid of any reminder, any of the trappings that remind us that we are a subject race, that remind us that the last word is with the British Government, through its government, through its civil servants, not through the people's elected representatives. These were the three urges in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Indonesia, and Burma. They have satisfied the first urge - the political urge. They have got rid of their foreign master and they are masters in their own homes. They now face the other two urges - economic and social - poverty and the social injustices of their own society.

There are Communist parties in every one of these territories. It is because Communism is the product of social and economic circumstances. It is a solution which appeals to those who want a swift and radical change from poverty, from misery, from social injustices. And it has worked. It may yet work in South-East Asia - we do not know. But it will definitely take over if India fails as a democracy, if Burma fails as a democracy, if Indonesia fails as a democracy. People lose faith in political movements and politi- cal philosophies which talk but do not produce results. Then nothing, not S.E.A.T.O. nor the hydrogen bomb can prevent the Indian people, the Indonesian people, freely choosing - as seven odd million Indonesians have already freely chosen - on the ballot paper the hammer and the sickle. For the vast majority of them, Communism does not mean concentration camps, labour camps and all the horrors which the American, and lately the British, Press have been prone to publicize. They understand it through the people who work for Communism, generally sincere people who feel a deep and abiding compassion for their fellow human beings as much as the Hon. the Chief Minister, but with this one difference: they have accepted a dogma. They have accepted a cut and dried solution, a discipline which says that that is the answer and it is the only answer.

I have not accepted that answer because I hope that one could have not only all the economic and social benefits which a Communist society can produce, but also the human benefits of spiritual and individual freedom - bourgeois ideas - but ideas and concepts in which I have been indoctrinated and in which I believe. I believe that whether we go Communist or non-Communist in the future depends on whether we can build up a clean, healthy political movement with clean and healthy leaders, men who believe in democracy and social justice and who enter politics because they want to serve and not because they want to loot. If you can find enough such men, honest, able, and prepared to work, you can fight the Communists without guns. If you cannot, then you resort to S.E.A.T.O., to atom bombs and to hydrogen bombs.

In Britain, they do not need the hydrogen bomb, nor curfews, nor barbed wires, nor detention camps, because the three conditions for revolution are not there. There is neither the political, the economic, nor the social urge. They do not hate their rulers. They do not feel an acute sense of injustice or of poverty. They do not feel that the system is unfair or unjust.

The Hon. the Chief Minister must realise that anti-Communism is an entirely barren philosophy which can produce no results. I do not believe in it. If I have to choose between Communism and anti-Communism, I will choose Communism because the other is a barren, a negative philosophy. If you hate something because you do not like some aspects of it, you can work yourself into a state where anything said or done by the Communists must be wrong and evil. I have taken this point strongly because it is quite likely that my motion may not find favour with this House and only the Hon. the Chief Minister may be present at these talks. He has told us that he is going as the Chief Minister. I had not meant to be facetious or unkind when I asked him what his mandate was. We have a right to know what he proposes to do at these talks, for their outcome will affect us, not just him as the Chief Minister. He might have to resign or he might have to go to London for further consultation. But it will affect each and every one of us in this Assembly and in this country. The two other persons who are going to these miniature summit talks have got definite mandates. Mr Chin Peng represents a definite group. He knows exactly what he is going to the talks for and he is going to bargain for as good conditions as he can possibly get, if he can get them from the Tunku in the Federation. But he knows exactly what he is going for. He is no amateur politician. He is no lawyer turned politician. He has become part of a revolutionary movement - part of a revolution. I know that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works wants to fight Communism. He does not bother about understanding it. I am interested in understanding it because if you do not understand it, the odds are that you will never be able to fight it.

The Tunku has also a definite mandate. He went into the elections on it and won - 800,000 votes - his platform being that if he became Chief Minister, he was going to give an amnesty and settle the Emergency. He has since said that he will go there and explain the amnesty terms and he will also listen to what Mr Chin Peng has to say on behalf of the Malayan Communist Party.

Sir, our Chief Minister has said this morning that the Chief Minister of the Federation would not welcome my presence nor the presence of other representatives from this Assembly. I have a great regard, Sir, for the Chief Minister of the Federation. He is a modest, unassuming man who can say, without arrogance, that he represents at least some three million odd people of Malaya. He is a courteous man and I do not believe he would have used the words: "I would not welcome either Lee Kuan Yew or any Members of the Opposition." I should hate to imagine that those were his words and I feel that the Hon. the Chief Minister has done him an injustice when he put that message in that particular form. He of all people understands that this is not a question to be settled by Chief Ministers. This is a question ultimately to be resolved by the people of Malaya, which means, in effect, by those who have influence over large masses of the people of Malaya, by those who, by their work and their devotion to the welfare of the people, have that influence over the masses.

I therefore hope that before this debate is over, the Hon. the Chief Minister will tell us what is his mandate for these talks. He has said that he is going there as Chief Minister at the request and invitation of the Chief Minister of the Federation. Surely he cannot expect us to accept such a supercilious - perhaps supercilious is unkind - but such a superficial reply? What is the mandate? What are his terms of reference? What does he propose to do?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have suggested in my resolution that all political Parties should be represented because we in Singapore are in a slightly different position from the Federation. The Tunku in the Federation can safely say to Mr Chin Peng, "I speak for the people of the Federation of Malaya." Fifty-one out of the fifty-two elected represent- tatives are members of the Alliance of which he is the titular and the real head. I do not mean this as a slight to our Chief Minister, but the facts of the position in Singapore must be faced. I do not think the Hon. the Chief Minister can say, from a position of strength to the Malayan Communist Party representative, that he speaks for the people of Singapore. He would be in a much better position if he had with him members from all the political Parties. Then, we together can say, "These are the terms which we feel are fair and just for the settlement of this country and we speak for the people of Singapore."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister took pride in the fact that it was he who suggested, when constitutional matters were to be settled in London, that "It is not a matter for the Labour Front. The Labour Front seeks no benefit from it, no kudos. It is not a matter for the Alliance or the Coalition. It is a national matter, one for all Parties, for all the people of Singapore." And it was he who told the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he would head an All-Party delegation to London to settle an all-Singapore problem which he himself, even if he represents not only the Labour Front but also the Coalition, could not -

The Chief Minister: Would not.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Would not. Mr Speaker, Sir, I apologise if I have given the Hon. the Chief Minister any indication that I think he is not a person who would respond to the House with the highest of political principles and political motives. But I ask him seriously to consider this motion, not from the point of view of Party advantage - for I seek none in this motion - but from the point of view of the interests of his Government and of the country, that he should go with representatives from the other Parties so that he could then talk from a stronger position. I know there are other political Parties here who are alarmed at the prospect of having to meet a Communist Secretary-General. They want to leave it entirely to Chief Ministers. In fact, I remember the nominal leader of the Progressive Party saying in the Press that if we all went, we would increase the prestige and position of the representative from the Malayan Communist Party. I do not see how one could possibly increase the prestige and reputation of the Malayan Communist Party representative. He is already meeting two Chief Ministers as an equal - the Chief Minister of the Federation and the Chief Minister of Singapore under British rule meet the "Chief Minister" of both Singapore and the Federation under Communist rule. I think we would do much better if we met as leaders of political groups in the Federation and in Singapore, faced with a common problem. Let us not suppose that we can solve this thing by banishing 8,000 people to China. Let us not suppose that we can solve this thing by telling Mr Chin Peng, "If you bring Communism to Malaya, then we shall starve", because he does not believe it. If he did, he would not have fought for so long. He believes that a Communist Malaya is going to be a prosperous and a happy Malaya where he is going to solve all these economic injustices, where all this nonsense of expatriate pay and upgrading and travelling allowances and entertainment allowances will be thrown into the limbo of the 'feudalistic medieval past'. And by God I believe he would in a very short time. And I would cheer him when he does that, because they are parts of the present which I hate, and I would like to see them part of the forgotten past.

I therefore move that we record our belief that it is in the best interests of this country if we meet as political leaders to settle a political problem in Malaya. We cannot concede a Communist Malaya at these talks, nor can Mr Chin Peng concede an anti-Communist Malaya at these talks. Even so great and respectable a man as Mr Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of Britain, came on the air over Radio Malaya and said, "We must find a way out." I believe, if we are prepared to work, to remove the economic and social injustices in this country, then we need not be afraid that Malaya will go under. But if we are not prepared to work and if we want to preserve all the privileges and all the inequalities existing today, then, of course, we shall have to go back and put all kinds of prohibitions which will cause the talks to fail.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all want peace in Malaya. We are sick of the Emergency. We are sick of the enormous expense that this struggle has cost us in schools and hospitals, in social services and in development. For the fight to continue, if it can be resolved, would be a folly. That is not to say that one should resolve the fight, in order that we can lose it in some other way. But we could resolve this Emergency and fight, not with guns, but with ideas. It is a battle of convictions, a battle for minds, a battle for a way of life. If you can find the people who can resolve the economic and social injustices of this country better than the Malayan Communist Party can, then you need never be afraid that you cannot build an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. And it is with that uppermost in our minds that an All-Party delegation should sit down with Mr Chin Peng and discuss the problems which confront us.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): I rise to second the motion, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, as an Independent Member, there can be no question of me or any other Independent -

The Chief Minister: That is a P.A.P. believer!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Braga: That is a P.A.P. badge!

Mr Speaker: Order. We have had order up to now.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: It is very often that we have all these unnecessary and childish interruptions from Government Benches.

Mr Speaker: Carry on, Inche Ahmad.

The Chief Minister: Particularly when there are lies being said!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. May I ask Members on the Government Benches, particularly those in the high dignity of office, -

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member has not given way.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am sorry, Sir.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: May I, on a point of order, ask that Members on the opposite Benches, particularly those holding Ministerial office, should not indulge in the sort of ribaldry which will wind up in fisticuffs in this House, like the Japanese Diet?

Mr Speaker: It is not really a point of order. It is a point of behaviour. Inche Ahmad, please continue.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, as an Independent Member, there can be no question of me or any of the other Independents in this House being on the All-Party delegation to the peace talks or any other talks. But it seems to be one of the most important things on which both sides of this House should act jointly.

The elections showed conclusively that the people of this country are fed up with the Emergency rules. They are fed up with the restrictions forced on them. They want peace and so they repudiated the Progressives and others who supported a war which can only benefit a colonial power. The first act to end colonialism is to make the peace offer succeed. Should it fail, we would offer the British a justification to continue ruling us. All of us are agreed, and I should say all the Malayans in this House are agreed, that colonialism must be ended. The Hon. the Chief Minister has a unanimous mandate for this. In carrying out this mandate, the London talks are only part of and not the whole thing. The peace talks are also an important part. If the Hon. the Chief Minister thinks that it is important to have an All-Party delegation for the London talks, I think that it is almost equally important to have an All-Party delegation to the peace talks too.

Further, Mr Speaker, Sir, the talks involve the future of this country. It is too much of a responsibility to be taken on by the Government with its very small majority. On the issues involved at these peace talks, Sir, the people of this country should talk with one voice. Therefore, it is only right that the delegation to be led by the Hon. the Chief Minister must compose of representatives from both sides of the House. The Government must not forget that, should the talks fail, it will be held responsible by the people of Singapore for having sabotaged the anti-colonial struggle. Therefore, not only in the interest of the people but in the interest of the Labour Front, it is advisable for the Hon. the Chief Minister to lead an All-Party delegation.

Question proposed.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that, in the annals of this young Assembly, this is a day which should be banded with black in mourning - in mourning for the fact that we have before us a motion which, if there were Communists in the Assembly, they would not only take no exception to, but they could find not one single word to differ from. It is a motion which you would expect an able Communist to propose. It suggests that, but for a peaceful settlement with the Malayan Communist Party, there could be no constitutional crisis, no constitutional progress -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Progress, yes. We had the crisis already.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

The Chief Minister: Yes -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: That is what -

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

The Chief Minister: The hon. Member is so full of himself, so fearful of what he might meet that one can appreciate his anxiety to interrupt the speech and the train of thought of those who seek to answer this motion which exalts the Communist Party and their comrade Chin Peng.

Sir, I took the opportunity yesterday to draw attention to the composition of this group that calls itself the People's Action Party. I did point out that there was one person, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who was giving an umbrella of respectability, an umbrella of democratic reasonableness to an amorphous organisation whose outside activities can rarely meet the light of day. It is an organisation we have had to mention and deal with in this Assembly in connection with the riots of May last. It is an organisation which produces, apart from the hon. Member who is unquestionably an able, adept political manoeuvrer -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. I cannot have the word "manoeuvrer" used of a Member of the Assembly.

The Chief Minister: Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw it, but I meant no disrespect. Shall we say an able politician who is aware of and has instinct for making a political point?

I would say with respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I wish I had to the same extent that quality without in any way derogating from the intellectual integrity that I seek to maintain.

Now, this hon. Member, Sir, has seen fit, when he finds himself faced with a fact which bars his way, to pretend that it does not exist and to impute to me a lack of integrity in reporting to this Assembly my conversation with the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman. Since he wants the exact words, I am quite sure the Tunku has nothing to hide, and though I have not had the opportunity to consult him, I shall inform hon. Members, as far as I can, of the exact phraseology in which he indicated his position. I informed him of the motion before the House and asked him whether he would wish the leaders of the Parties in the Assembly, including the leader of the People's Action Party, to attend this proposed meeting, and his answer was, "I do not want them." Of course, you may doubt me if you wish. It is so easy -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You said "welcome" in the morning.

The Chief Minister: Well "welcome". He would not welcome your presence. He does not want you. Maybe there is a distinction? [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. The hon. Member can make it in his reply, but I would point out something that the hon. Member, in his glorified attempt to save the country, forgot. The Federation is not governed by Singapore. The Federation has its own Government, and much as the Member for Tanjong Pagar would like to ride the white horse to victory in the name of Malaya, Malaya today is led by Tunku Abdul Rahman - not the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I never suggested I was!

The Chief Minister: Much as the hon. Member would like to attend the meeting, need I remind those who, having achieved the distinction of being Members of this Assembly, of the normal courtesies of human intercourse? This meeting is being arranged by the Chief Minister of the Federation. It is part of his platform. It is his desire to meet this leader of a small group of terrorists in order to explain the terms of the amnesty. Appreciating that what might take place could affect our own interests, the Chief Minister of the Federation has had the courtesy to invite me, as Chief Minister of Singapore, to be present at these talks. That this Assembly or any Member thereof should at any time seriously consider the question of forcing himself on this meeting as a gate-crasher is, to my mind, something that is beneath the concepts of anyone with any self-respect.

I have been asked what is my mandate and what I am to do. Sir, it has been repeatedly stated by the Chief Minister of the Federation that he is going to explain the terms of the amnesty to Chin Peng and that he would be prepared to listen to anything that Chin Peng has to say. It would be informative and helpful that I, as Chief Minister of Singapore, should be present at these talks. I have made it sufficiently clear that I am a junior partner in this venture. I do not anticipate taking either a major or any vital part in the talks between the Tunku and this man, Chin Peng. I can but regret the effort made in this House to seek to impose ourselves upon the hospitality of the Federation in a manner which must deeply embarrass them.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar, in a speech whose like I had never hoped to hear in this Assembly glorifying these so-called anti-colonial forces, has suggested summit talks between equal men. There is no such thing, Sir. The leader of a band who has been terrorising the country in parts has been asked to meet the Chief Minister of the Federation at the Chief Minister's convenience. It has been suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that it is for us to go there and have terms that are fair and just for settlement. Sir, if it is the wish of this House to negotiate with Communists for terms that are fair and just for settlement, this House has every right to take its own initiative to make its own arrangements for its own meeting for negotiations with the Communists, but when to every man who can read, to every man who can hear, it has been made abundantly clear by the Chief Minister of the Federation that there is no question of negotiations and for responsible Members of this Assembly to seek to suggest, through this Assembly to the country, that that is all eye-wash and that, in fact, the Chief Minister and I are going to discuss terms fair and just for settlement is, to say the least, to embarrass very seriously our good and close neighbours who are the main, in fact, the principal sufferers from the terrorism of which the Member for Tanjong Pagar calls anti-colonialism.

He speaks of the basic conditions of discontent which exist in the Federation and which will find their outlet in the same way that they have in Singapore. I will say this to you, Sir, that in so far as I appreciate the conditions in the Federation, the entire country, free from the equal of people like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, have learnt to respect and revere their Chief Minister, have complete faith in his integrity, in his sincerity, and in his ability to bring to them the political independence which they crave; and there can be no question whatsoever of the people of the Federation seeking to find an outlet for so-called discontent by joining these gentlemen whom the Member for Tanjong Pagar has glorified to the summit of equality with the Governments of the Federation and Singapore.

Sir, it has been suggested by the hon. Member that to deny a fair settlement to these anti-colonial forces, as he terms them, is to be a colonial. The Member for Tanjong Pagar is not unread. He is not without knowledge of the fact that perhaps the most vicious colonial power of today is a Communist power - Russia. There is no power which has as many colonies and which controls them more stringently than the people of Moscow. He speaks of the Communists as being anti-colonial forces. They have battled arduously, admittedly. Many of them believe with sincerity in their doctrine, unquestionably. Many of them are dedicated to the cause of Communism. That is perfectly true. But let us recognise this fact: They are not fighting colonialism. They are fighting for Communism which is a worse form of colonialism than the colonialism we have here today. We cannot sufficiently, Sir, recognise that fact.

It has been suggested that we have reached a stalemate in a war of equals. I would remind hon. Members that if they are equals, then why the amnesty? If there are true nationalists in the Communist group, they must recognise the fact that since these first few months, there has been set in motion machinery which can, in truth, and, in fact, achieve the nationalism that we all - I believe, the honest and the dishonest - seek; that these Communists who have used the cover of anti-colonialism and nationalism now stand naked in their true colours to a greater extent than even the hon. Member has shown his own colours this afternoon. These Communists recognise the fact that today they are not fighting a colonial power and cannot pretend to. They are not fighting for nationalism because all their bullets and all their arson have not achieved it and, in fact, other forces working peacefully through the democratic process have every legitimate rea- son for believing that the democratic process will, within a matter of a few months, bring concrete and definite evidence of early self-government and independence. Those Communist forces in the jungle, Sir, must be conscious of the fact that to the public, they stand stripped. They stand, Sir, as obviously as anything visible to the human eye as being not anti-colonial but anti-national. These Communist forces are seeking their own form of government and they always will, in the same way that foreign ideology through Communism is seeking the overthrow of the Indian Government, and has sought the overthrow through violent means of the Burmese Government even when Burma was independent. These are not basically nationalist forces. These are the forces that seek the maintenance of only one ideology, and in order to maintain their camouflage, they recognise that now that their activity is being obviously directed against the people's governments, they must come out and cease these activities of violence which have brought no benefit to them, which give them no hope of success whatsoever. Not even the flamboyant imagination of the Member for Tanjong Pagar could conceive of the Communist forces in the Federation achieving victory by violence against the Tunku and the people of the Federation. That is the stalemate in the language of the P.A.P. - a complete and utter loss, a complete and utter failure. An absolute necessity, if they are to achieve anything for their own ideology, is that they should now put down the rifle and take up the poison of internal subversion of which the hon. Member has far closer acquaintance than even I. That is the position, Sir, the so-called stalemate - an absolute failure of the war as it is termed by the hon. Member, an absolute failure of violence by rebels who now wish to come out, allegedly to pursue peaceful vocations, and let us hope that many of them are sincere about it.

Why this Government fell in with the views of the Chief Minister of the Federation in the amnesty was just this one argument that there are and there have been in this country men of integrity and sincerity, nationals to the very core, who, sick of the colonialism which tethered them, which degraded them, unable to find an outlet for attack, took to this form of violence as the only means of achieving that end. I do not think that number is very great, unfortunately, because I think that, having gone that way, they soon get caught in the web and they find it too difficult - the weakness of the human spirit and the human flesh - to retract from a position on a point of no return. But there may well be some - and the amnesty is intended for them - but in considering this motion, let us remember a few basic home truths which I shall repeat. Singapore does not govern the Federation. The revolt is in the Federation, not in Singapore. The meeting is arranged by the Chief Minister of the Federation. It is not my meeting or your meeting, Sir, or the meeting of any Member of this Assembly. I may be permitted to attend, and I certainly am, Sir.

The Tunku has been indicated as a man who is the soul of courtesy, and he is happy to certain suggestions that I make. But I do appreciate the decisions taken about the venue and about the arrangements. What the Tunku says at the meeting is entirely the decision of the Chief Minister of the Federation at which I have the privilege of being present. That is the true position. Those who vote in favour of this motion vote to be gate-crashers, vote to give honour and glory to a group that has murdered and burnt and destroyed, a group that itself recognises its inability to pursue further a course of action which has brought it and can bring it no victory, and which now seeks to come out of the jungle. Once more, let it be clear that there is no question of negotiation, and this is the Tunku's decision. He has indicated quite clearly that there is no question of negotiation. "I am", he has said repeatedly in public, "going to explain to him the terms of the amnesty and I shall be quite happy to hear what he has to say." Let us get away from this rhetoric, from this effort to seek to control the destiny of the Federation by a small group in Singapore whose sympathies seem to lie elsewhere than in the traditions of this Assembly.

Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the future of this country cannot be of greater concern to the colonial officials than to the people of this country. That is why the respected Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, said a few weeks ago that he found himself in a difficult position. The people wanted peace but the Director of Operations wanted to destroy the Communists by military force, a method which has continuously failed for the last seven years. The people naturally want peace. Continuation of the Emergency cannot be in their interests, for it is only under conditions of peace that democracy has a chance to flourish in Malaya. The people generally are sick and tired of the Emergency. General Bourne and the colonial officials may not be tired. As a matter of fact, colonial officials have come to regard the Emergency, together with all the Emergency powers in their hands, as part of the life in this country. The cry of Communist subversion, the libelling of individuals and Parties as Communists or Communist-inspired, and the danger of detention without trial - all these things help colonialism to kill the enthusiasm of those who hate colonialism and who would replace it with a free, independent and democratic Malaya. In short, the Emergency has acted as a check on the growth and activities of all progressive nationalist forces in this country. As far as the majority of the people are concerned, the Emergency has meant heartless restrictions on basic democratic liberties. It has also meant the expenditure of large sums of money on military campaigns to exterminate the Malayan Communist Party. All these resources and money could have been more profitably used for the social and economic development of this country. The Emergency has wasted human lives and material resources without achieving a single beneficial result.

After seven years of warfare with foreign troops and mercenaries of all kinds roaming the country, the Malayan Communist Party still remains with us. If the Emergency in this country was merely a military problem, the military method would have succeeded long ago in exterminating Communism. The armed might of Communism is far less imposing than the armed might of British imperialism. Mr Chin Peng does not have helicopters. Neither does he have security forces - an armed force of 300,000 men with all the weapons of modern warfare. Neither does he have prisons and detention camps where he may detain without trial people suspected of colonial sympathies. It is clear that if the Emergency was purely a military problem of disposing of a few hundred troublemakers, it would have been disposed of long ago by military forces, but unfortunately for General Templer and General Bourne, the Emergency is not a military problem. It has its making in the political, social and economic conditions in the country, conditions which make thousands of people feel that they have no place in a colonial society, and since the Emergency is political in nature, it can only be settled by political means.

My Party holds the belief that the real solution to the Emergency is to take a lesson from our great neighbours - India, Burma, Ceylon and Indonesia - who do not exclude their local Communist Parties from the constitutional processes which govern these countries. If our Chief Minister were half as wise as Nehru or Soekarno, there could be an end to the Emergency in this country. My Party feels that the continuation of the Emergency would provide an excuse for the colonial powers to go on denying the Malayan people their democratic rights and the freedom to run their own affairs as they choose. As such, colonial officials are hardly to be entrusted with the direction and control of negotiations with the Malayan Communist Party for a peaceful settlement of this country.

Under present arrangements, it must be assumed that the Hon. the Chief Minister is guided solely by the colonial officials in the matter of negotiations with the Malayan Communist Party. The chances are that the colonial officials are not interested in the peaceful settlement of the Emergency. That is why the Hon. the Chief Minister should take the people of the country into his confidence, through their representatives of political parties. After all, it is our country and we have a bigger stake in it than colonial officials and colonial soldiers. The Hon. the Chief Minister would, if he had a sense of responsibility to the people of this country, consult the elected representatives of the people in this Assembly and then seek to plan a peaceful settlement of the Emergency.

I firmly warn the elected representatives of the people in this Assembly that if they do not take the responsibility for a peaceful settlement of the Emergency into their own hands, there will be no peaceful settlement. The Malayan people will be condemned to further years of bloodshed and suppressive laws and hopes of democratic and peaceful progress in this country will be destroyed. I ask all self-respecting Malayans in this House to vote for the motion.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I rise to move an amendment to this motion, may I, with your permission, express my great appreciation of the stands taken by the hon. Members on this question and that my sympathies go to them on this account?

We have heard the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) give full and clear plans on how to end the Emergency. The Hon. the Chief Minister, on the one hand, believes that if he despises or is determined to get rid of Communism, then he must use all his means, even to the extent of allying himself with colonialism, to achieve his aim.

The Chief Minister: I did not say that.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry. On the other hand, we can understand the motive of and the determination shown by the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he moved this motion. It is that if we want to get rid of colonialism, we must use all means, even to allying ourselves with Communism, to attain this objective.

Sir, before I came to touch on this subject, a few of my friends said, "Do not touch it! It is high politics! It is very dangerous!" Sir, I cannot bear to think of the sufferings brought about by the eight years of Emergency in the Federation. At least, we in Singapore have been in a better position. I have a strong belief that it is now high time clearly to admit that a military policy to solve a political problem is a failure and that we in this country should try our best to find any means, not merely by the use of military power, to settle this vital issue.

Sir, I think it will be recalled that quite often we have heard that the Emergency is going to end, and that the bandits are not more than 5,000 strong. That has been repeated and repeated many a time by generals and commanders and even, if I am not mistaken, by the Rt. Hon. Mr Malcolm MacDonald. But we are still faced with this threat today, and the Malayan Communist Party still remains 5,000 strong, and nobody in this country at this moment can tell us when and how we can end this Emergency. So, it is solely for this reason, which I appreciate, that our courageous Chief Minister is prepared to accept the invitation by the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to take part in the coming peace talks.

Sir, since our Chief Minister has clearly stated that he is only just an invited guest, and that he is a junior partner, it is unjustified that this motion should be introduced that the Hon. the Chief Minister should lead an All-Party delegation to the talks with the Malayan Communist Party. My reasons for opposing the motion are two. Firstly, we already know that neither the Hon. the Chief Minister, nor anybody in this country, has any right to interfere with the internal affairs of the Federation Government. Secondly, I will quote an old English proverb: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." We have seen, especially during these five days of debate, how much party differences or party politics have come into play in this Assembly, and we should not be surprised if some enthusiastic Member, on meeting Chin Peng, were to say, "Oh, my brother, my comrade, you are going to become the President of Malaya!" Or there might be someone who would say, "Look, Chin Peng, I am going to ask for more tanks and bombs to drive you entirely out of this country!" Therefore, honestly speaking, I think it is possible to visualise such a situation taking place and I do not think it is wise for the Hon. the Chief Minister to lead a delegation of such diametrically opposite views to meet Chin Peng.

So, the amendment that I propose to move reads:

"That this House considers it in the best interests of the country that all political parties in the Assembly should be consulted before the Chief Minister goes to meet the M.C.P. representatives to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency in order to bring peace and constitutional progress."

Sir, my reason for moving this amendment is that I believe that, despite the many Party differences, -

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I first have the hon. Member's amendment in writing, please? He can carry on later.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, my reason for moving this amendment is that I believe, since the Hon. the Chief Minister is only a junior partner in these talks, it is much wiser for us that we acquaint the Hon. the Chief Minister with our views on these talks. We can expect all political Parties to express their opinions on these peace talks unless the Hon. the Chief Minister has his own decision to say what is right, not only to Chin Peng but also even to Tunku Abdul Rahman. You know very well that my English is poor. I had better make it very clear by saying that the reason why I press this point is that it is important that the Hon. the Chief Minister, before he goes to see Chin Peng, must have an All-Party mandate on this one question - the recognition of the Malayan Communist Party. I am sure many of us have been told, "Please, for goodness sake, do not touch this controversial issue." Yet, I am the naughtiest boy and I am purposely going to say that I am a fervent and ardent believer in democracy. I think it is an injustice to let any political Party, if it is unarmed, go underground. It sometimes puzzles me, since it does not make much difference because if the Malayan Communist Party put down their arms, they can be compared with our People's Action Party, which is now here! I am of the view that if the Malayan Communist Party can accept a conditional recognition of their Party, why not we try? Of course, many political Parties will have different opinions about that, but at least now the Hon. the Chief Minister can have my view that I am supporting a conditional recognition of the Malayan Communist Party if it will stop its acts of arson, killing and murder.

Mr Speaker: Can I have a seconder?

Mr R. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Member seconding the amendment?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, I stand to support the amendment just moved by the Member for Changi. I support this amendment on the same principle as it stands today. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister must have received this invitation to meet Mr Chin Peng, or must have received some other invitations in India, Pakistan or anywhere else, before the 9th November when he had an elected majority on his side. Sir, the position today is quite different. It is eleven over there and, as such, he cannot talk on behalf of the people of Singapore. Sir, because of this, I think it is his duty, before he does anything, to consult the Opposition who have got more elected Members. I thought the Government would have resigned long ago when this situation arose.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Keep hoping!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I request my friend on my side to allow me to talk! Members on the Government Benches are very nice! They do not disturb!

Sir, on the other hand, the Government is still here, even after what took place on 9th November. And how? By the support of a colonial power - the United Kingdom. Sir, in a true democracy anywhere in the world, it is the people who govern the country. Singapore is not in that state today. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister in his address mentioned Communist Russia and so on. I believe I am right in saying, and anybody can correct me if I am wrong, that England, our masters, have recognised Communist Russia. India has, Burma has, and Indonesia has. I do not say that we should recognise Communist Russia. We are not a self-governing country yet. What we shall do will be our business when we are free and self-governing.

Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister also said that we are not going to sit down on equal terms with Mr Chin Peng to discuss peace. I am not commenting on that but what I do say is this. There are strikes in Singapore and in order to avoid these strikes, do we not sit down with the strikers and discuss: "Why are you doing this? Why cannot you call off the strikes for the betterment of the city and society?"

Sir, I remember those days - I am not discussing the pre-war Singapore that has seen 123 years of British rule - but I am just drawing attention to the reoccupation of Singapore in 1945 when I happened to be in the British Military Administration Council and I well remember, Sir, Mr Wu Tien Wang and many others who made very good speeches for the betterment of the city and they were invited to the homes of the then chief of Singapore, Sir Ralph Hone, and others. I do not know what happened later on. Many of them disappeared. I am told that some who are doing this fighting are dissatisfied nationalists. If that is so, would it not be advisable on our part to say, "Look here, brother, why are you doing this? Why are you causing this misery, looting and killing? What is wrong?" It is possible that, by sitting together, we might convince Mr Chin Peng to come over to our side. If he does not, well, the result is clear for both the Governments.

Sir, the Bandoeng Conference attended by the Asian powers has accepted the doctrine or the ideal of Panchshila, that is, peaceful co-existence. There have been many conferences attended, amongst others, by England and France, where they have sat down with Communist Russia, and talked in terms of world betterment. If we can achieve something for the good of our own city or the people just by talking, why not? There is nothing wrong about it.

Sir, we have been told just now by the Hon. the Chief Minister that he has been invited by the Chief Minister of the Federation to be present at the talks. If he is going there just to attend as an observer, that is his business. I am sure he cannot commit us in whatever talks he has when he is going as an observer or just to be present there. But if he wants to commit Singapore to anything, then it is his duty to see that we, the Opposition, who command the majority of the votes and represent Singapore on this side of the House and not on the Government side, be consulted. Even if the Hon. the Chief Minister goes, though he does not represent Singapore, we do not mind his going provided he consults the Opposition Parties on this side.

Now, Sir, there is one more thing which is personal. My friend the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) mentioned that he is an Independent and there was some remark made by the Hon. the Chief Minister. Sir, I am an Independent Member myself. I join this one side or the other side if I hold to certain convictions. I have retired from active business since four to five years. The Communists would never accept me if I wanted to be a Communist. I do not think the People's Action Party would accept me in any part. I do not know -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, possibly the Socialists might accept me if I signed proper terms with them, but I do believe in a human society which should remain at peace for their own good and for the good of their own city. Sir, I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment just moved.

Question on the amendment put, and, negatived.

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

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, no doubt there are Members of this House who will regard my action in rising to take part in this debate as "intervention", but the constitution being what it is, I have the right and they must hear me out.

Now, I should like to make it clear here that I have been an opponent of immediate self-government but not of eventual self-government, but I wish to say that, to me, Sir, this is the most unfortunate motion ever placed before this Assembly, not excluding that made by the Progressive Party on 25th July when they put forward a motion for a new constitution providing for immediate independence. "Unfortunate" is the word I use, Sir, but nothing that emanates from the Member for Tanjong Pagar surprises me. Of course, he has never lost an opportunity at any time to try to explain away the Emergency - in speeches made on May 16th, I think it was, and on dates around that time, he stated: the Emergency, of course, in his opinion, arises from social injustices and economic ills, mal-administration and failure to understand the aims and aspirations of a resurgent nationalism, blunders of stuffed-shirt colonial officials - my gosh, do not let me hear that word! - over a period of eight years, and all the clap-trap of Marble Arch soapbox oratory ad nauseam on every possible occasion, as if there were millions of disaffected citizens in the Federation of Malaya instead of a few thousands. He said there are eight thousand. I read in the newspapers that it is only three thousand. Anyway, it cannot be very many. He says, "Of course, the security forces cannot get on with the business of keeping down the Emergency because they cannot get information." How can they possibly get information from citizens who will have their throats cut immediately if they give it?

Now, Sir, the hon. and learned Member is a politician. So normally one would discount what he says. I have sometimes thought that his baiting the Government on the subject of Malayanisation was no more than the carrying out of a directive from his principals, but it seemed to me yesterday in the debate on one of the Heads in the Estimates - Immigration, I think it was Head 56 - that what he is really suffering from is xenophobia. Sir, even this aspect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's approach to the subject is not without ironic connotations in that he himself has an extremely Westernised education and every thought-form he has is Westernised, so that he has to go on beating the anti-colonial drum in order to rally his less articulate followers and, of course, to maintain his leadership, perhaps his ephemeral leadership, of the Party.

Sir, the audacity of this motion absolutely astounds me. He is obviously assuming that the Chief Ministers of the respective territories are to meet those jungle heroes for talks - for talks, if you please - to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency. What! As equals! I trust that the Chief Ministers of these territories will treat these canaille like the beaten enemies they are.

The members of the People's Action Party - the "Action" part of it seems to me to be to drive the country headlong to perdition - never miss a chance to scream "Merdeka", which, of course, does not mean Merdeka but just plain anti-colonialism. It is obvious. I mean, if every time they say "Merdeka" I say "Colonialism", I will be within my rights - it will be a knight for their bishop! Yet, as the Hon. the Chief Minister has said, roughly in these words, "They are playing straight into the hands of the most insidious form of colonialism that the world has ever known and far outside the reach of their philosophy." Does the Member for Tanjong Pagar really think that Mr Chin Peng is some species of a Robin Hood? To speak utterly plainly, they are no more than the tools of the Moscow-Peking Axis and the hon. Member, when he assured the House - I think it was May 16th - that in their struggle for freedom he would fight anyone, even the Communists, was just deluding himself. In spite of his record, I think that the little, slim Tarzans of the jungle would give him pretty short shrift. How can anyone, Sir, - and this really has not been touched on enough in this debate - who claims to be civilised, condone the bloody and horrible murders, mayhem and foul, masochistic acts by those fiends and then try to excuse them by sophisticated arguments on doubtful premises? No doubt, the proposer of this motion relishes being photographed at whatever will be the place in the ulu with all the Party Members in diminishing precedence behind him. I think this is a scandalous motion, Sir, and I hope it will be heavily defeated.

The day may come, you know, when Members of this House will look back nostalgically at the days when they could get up in this Assembly and, under the Royal Coat of Arms, with its "Honi soit qui mal y pense" and its "Dieu et mon droit", twist the lion's tail with impunity and get away with it. I hope, Sir, that the Asian Members of this House know that I do not really represent colonialism, taipans, stuffed shirts, etc., etc. They may think so, but they would be wrong. I am much more liberally-minded than many of them may think, but what I have said this afternoon, I would not, in spite of all the sophistry and the wit of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, cancel half a line.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not feel so strongly, as some other Members do, on the iniquity of the speech by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. There were points, of course, with which I profoundly disagree but by and large it deserves congratulation, I thought. He obviously is a man who reads his Straits Times very thoroughly and carefully and he has a very good memory. As far as I can recollect, pretty well every point that he has made has appeared in the columns of the Straits Times in the last year or two, and he has given an adequate summary of what that respectable newspaper's opinion on this matter is. Apart from those opinions, I do not think he deserves all the reprobations that have been heaped on him, but I would like to correct him before I come to the main body of his motion. I would like to correct him on one or two small points. He has a fascinated interest in me. He can never keep to a speech without some reference to the Minister for Telecommunications and Mines, or the Minister for Transport and Expectations, or whatever extraordinary new variant in my title he manages to invent. But on this occasion, he got me right, though he corrected himself and got wrong again as soon as he could. It was not a mistake but he actually got it right this time and the reason he referred to me was to bring in a remark to the effect, I think, that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works neither seeks to fight Communism nor even to understand it. I think that is about what he said -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Seeks to fight.

Mr Francis Thomas: "Seeks to fight" comes from without understanding. Very well then. The fact is -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I said -

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Francis Thomas: I shall be quite happy to sit down and let him clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir, if he wishes to do so. I will assume that what he said was that I seek to fight Communism without understanding it. Is that a reasonable summary?

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Francis Thomas: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: I do not know. The hon. Member is addressing the Chair. I do not know.

Mr Francis Thomas: I do apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir. Well, be that as it may, I would like to make my position about Communism clear. I have, in the course of a not inactive life, lived with Communists at one time or another on quite friendly terms. People who are quite good friends of mine have been Communists or fellow-travellers or crypto-Communists and all the other variations of the Communist organisation, and I have no exaggerated horror of the Communist system. It seems to me a very suitable system for a backward country which has got into a mess and for people who are in a general collapse, as Russia was when the Communists got hold of Russia, or as China was when the Kuomintang gave way to the Communists. I do not think that it is a nice system at all, but when people have got into a mess you have to have drastic remedies. You certainly get them with Communism, and they probably will succeed in lifting up the economy of those two countries. They have in Russia succeeded in making very considerable economic progress. They have gone rather backward in agriculture but they have made enormous progress in heavy industry. They have even been able to distribute consumer goods to some extent in Russia and make the standard of living go up a bit, so that I am not excited about Communism. It is rather out of date, to my mind. It is a waning philosophy which is likely to vanish from the world in the next ten or fifteen years -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They do not -

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Francis Thomas: I do not say that the Communist forces in Russia will vanish in ten or fifteen years. I mean that what we might call the apostolic impulse of Communism will vanish - it is my guess, and I make no claims to be a prophet. I do not claim to understand Communism perfectly but I have made some study of it and I think I probably know just as much as the Member for Tanjong Pagar does about it, particularly when he asserts that if Chin Peng got control of Malaya, all these allowances, all this privileged housing, all the differentials in pay would instantly vanish and withal the poor would be lifted up. That just is not the fact, I am afraid, in the history of the other major Communist countries. In Russia, when they came in with Communism, they came in on the slogan of: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But they very soon saw that meant, of course, that you got what you needed and they very soon realised that that cock would not fight. They abandoned that for the other version which is: "From each according to his ability," (which means you are going to work as hard as I can make you) "and to each according to his work." Thus, the man whose work is recognised by the Communist Party as being valuable receives a country villa plus a town flat, extra rations and coupons and all the comforts and luxuries of life. But the chap whose work is recognised as being not very valuable gets very much less allotted to him; and anybody who does not work at all gets into a perfectly horrible situation - forced labour in the corrective labour camps - and I am afraid, if you had a Communist regime here, you would necessarily follow the same pattern. The idea that you would abolish all inequalities and privileges by establishing Communism here is just most absolute nonsense because there is no reason to suppose that the situation here would be different from any existing elsewhere. However, I only want to make that little point clear because there is so much misunderstanding about the nature of Communism, which is essentially a managerial system by which you take control of the capital assets of the State and develop the capital formation. That is the essential basis of Communism, and profound compassion and so on does not really operate at all.

However, I now want to come to the hon. Member's very interesting motion by which he wants representatives of all the Parties to go to meet Chin Peng. I am not going to talk about that in general, because it has been quite sufficiently dealt with by the Hon. the Chief Minister, but there are just one or two practical difficulties about it which I would like to point out.

The first one arises from a remark made by the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) earlier in this Budget sitting when he was talking about education. He then said very energetically and with great conviction that anybody - any Chinese, I think - any Malayan or Chinese who had received an English education was thereby cut off from his own people. The Member for Tanjong Pagar winced bitterly at this stab in the back from one of his own back-benchers. He had to admit that he himself had no connection with the people of Malaya and had no claim to represent them because he had received a very lengthy and extremely successful English education, but I do feel that one difficulty is that if the leader of the People's Action Party were to go to meet Chin Peng, his own followers would disown him and say, "We cannot allow this man to claim to be a representative of the people because he is obviously disqualified by the fact that he has got a law degree or whatever degrees he has got." However, that is perhaps a minor point which he can settle with his own internal management of the Party.

The greater difficulty comes from something which he himself said when we were talking about the Medical Estimates and he described himself as a mouthpiece. I thought that was an extraordinarily true and accurate description of himself. It was very frank of him to say quite boldly, "I am a mouthpiece." He claimed to be a mouthpiece putting forward the words which other people had prepared for him and he was coming in here to play them over, as it were, like a gramophone which could be carried in here and would deliver the burden which had been put into it.

Well, in meeting Chin Peng, it seems to me clear that you need to have leaders to meet a leader. I do not know Chin Peng, unless he is one of my old friends going by his Communist alias, but presumably he is a man of energy and leadership and he would require to meet other people of energy and leadership or he would feel that he is wasting his time. And in the Chief Minister of the Federation, we undoubtedly have a man who has very high qualities of leadership, purpose and drive. I feel that we also have a leader but of a different type, and a very able one indeed, in our Chief Minister of Singapore, a man who has dynamic drive. He is not one who is merely puffed along by the words of others. He himself initiates things and secures support for them because he is so obviously right. He is not just a mere trumpet through which other people blow their hot air. Now, Chin Peng is quite clearly a busy man and we would not send a mouthpiece to talk to him! I must remind this Assembly that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has demonstrated his qualities as a mouthpiece with most extraordinary success during this session. I would not like to estimate how long he has been on his feet and how many words he has poured forth over us, but I do feel that if he did go to discuss things with Chin Peng, the discussions would go on at least as long as Panmunjong, or possibly as long as the Emergency, because the number of words which he would find to use would, I am afraid, extend the discussions beyond all bearable length.

The last bit of objection - perhaps a very minor one - is that probably Chin Peng would object to one of the inveterate habits of the leader of the People's Action Party of putting words into his opponent's mouth which his opponent has never said. He is always doing it. He does it again and again but he does not get away with it here because we shoot him down and say: "Well, of course, I never said anything of that sort at all." He then makes his little joke from the front Bench and the matter passes over. But I think that if he sat down seriously with Chin Peng and try to argue with him, he would do the same sort of thing and get into a frightful state of confusion and Chin Peng would not have known what he had said at the end of it all probably. I think he would be intolerably confused and again an awful lot of time would be wasted. These are very minor matters, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not want to lengthen this out at all, but I do feel that they are really practical little objections which should be taken into account when considering this motion.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is necessary to call your attention and the attention of others to the fact that I am one of the few old men in a House so full of young and brilliant men. All we wanted was -

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Chief Minister: On a point of order, Sir. It is a point that I regret to take with the hon. Member who has just pointed out that he is an old man, but, Sir, on our side of the House, I feel that most honest men in this Assembly are getting very tired of the impression that certain hon. Members are bringing speeches prepared by others which they read irrespective of what has occurred in this Assembly. I do ask you, Sir, in all earnestness and with respect, to take steps to prevent the recurrence of an extremely unhealthy tradition which emanates from the People's Action Party only - whose Members are completely incapable of asking supplementaries to their own questions, who run to the mother hen for everything, and who come prepared with speeches that they have never written. I do ask, with respect, Sir, that you take -

Mr Speaker: I have got your point, Mr Chief Minister. The point of order, of course, is that Members must not read their speeches, but I do not think the hon. Member has been given a chance even to start.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: In the days when we were growing up, the world was not full of isms. Therefore, unlike many young men here, I probably understand the intensity of the people's demand for peace. That is why I am concerned with who goes to the peace talks. The peace talks, as far as the majority of the people are concerned, do not provide an occasion to prove that one political Party is better than the other. It will be only an occasion to end a wasteful war, a war that seems to be getting nowhere -

Mr Speaker: Order. You do appear to be reading, Mr Goh Chew Chua.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: It is this that must be ended. The blood of the people must not be spilt any more. We must seek a peaceful settlement of our differences with the Communists. It is the foreigners who started this war. Let us have the courage to end it. Only with a peaceful settlement can we destroy the excuses that are being put forward to make this country a police State. Only by reaching a peaceful settlement with the Communists can we push forward quickly with the earnest wish of the people to achieve self-government -

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Is the hon. Member, in fact, reading? If he says no, he can carry on. If he says yes, he will have to sit down. I must take his word for it.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Carry on.

The Chief Minister: That is a P.A.P. truth!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: I have seen some of the Labour Front Members who read the speeches which they have prepared, and I see no reason why the Opposition Members cannot prepare their speeches and speak in the Assembly. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order, please. This is getting completely out of order. Mr Goh Chew Chua, I have asked you whether you were reading a speech. You have assured me you were not reading a speech. So you can continue.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: I will stop my speech, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If no other Member wishes to speak, I will put the Question.

Original Question put, and negatived.