LONDON TALKS AND COMMONWEALTH VISIT (Statement by the Chief Minister)

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your indulgence to advise the Assembly of certain aspects of matters which transpired during the journey which I indicated to the Assembly at the last sitting which may affect the welfare of the people of Singapore?

Sir, the official purpose of our journey was to arrange with the Colonial Office for a date for a constitutional conference at which we are to seek a fresh constitution for Singapore and to prepare a tentative agenda. I have the pleasure to inform hon. Members that it has now been agreed by the Colonial Office that the constitutional conference will commence on the 23rd of April next and provision is made for its continuance for two to three weeks. The tentative agenda, Sir, includes the following items:

(1) Definition of internal self-government.

I wish to make it very clear, Sir, that the phrase "internal self-government" was used in correspondence with the Colonial Office long before I arrived in England, but when I was in London I indicated to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that, as a result of my discussions with the statesmen of India and Ceylon, I had gained a wider understanding of our problems and our role, and I desired it to be clearly understood that the phrase "internal self-government", although used for convenience, should not be deemed in any way to limit the nature or the status of the constitution which Singapore may seek at the April talks. Without in any way committing Her Majesty's Government to expression of views on any aspects of the issues involved in my statement, the Colonial Secretary agreed completely that the term "internal self-government" is used for purposes of convenience and is not intended in any way to limit the nature of our proposals or the consideration to be given to them at the constitutional conference.

(2) A date for the introduction of internal self-government.

This was agreed to on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government was in no way committed in advance to the principle that a date should be given, but that the whole issue would be freely discussed at the conference.

(3) The question of the structure of the Assembly.

(4) The question of the future of the Public Service.

(5) The question of external relations and external defence.

Sir, during our later discussions a sixth item was added - and that is, citizenship, on which I have more to say later on.

It was also agreed that both the Colonial Office and the Government of Singapore may add any matters to this agenda until the date of the conference.

Apart from the constitutional conference, Sir, my colleagues and I sought certain immediate concessions. The first was multi-lingualism. We requested that the provision in the Singapore Order in Council that English is the only official language of the Assembly should be deleted. The Secretary of State for the Colonies warned us of the practical difficulties involved but finally agreed that the Assembly should have the right, as soon as possible, to decide for itself the question of its own procedure, including the question of the languages to be used in the Assembly. He indicated his readiness to recommend an amendment to the Order in Council to delete Section 55 completely.

Item two, Sir, was the question of national servicemen and control. The Secretary of State conceded that it was only right and proper that national servicemen, comprising citizens of Singapore, raised by Singapore and paid for by Singapore, should be under the control of the people's representatives and not, as heretofore, under the exclusive control of His Excellency the Governor. I am happy to inform hon. Members that this agreement has now been fully enforced by the Singapore Colony Order in Council dated 2nd February, 1956, which passes control of national servicemen from the Governor to the Governor in Council.

Sir, prior to my departure, I had received certain complaints from local service officers that they had only right of access to the Chief Secretary, and that if they were dissatisfied with the Chief Secretary's decision, they had absolutely no right of access to the Chief Minister. I consider that an untenable position, and I am happy to report that the Secretary of State for the Colonies appreciates the situation and has accepted our representations that civil service staff associations should have the right of approach to the Chief Minister, through the Chief Secretary, on matters affecting general conditions of service and public policy relating to the public service. This rule is now in force.

The Colonial Secretary further agreed to recommend an amendment to the Order in Council to increase the number of appointed Ministers from six to seven, so as to allow the Chief Minister to be Minister without Portfolio, to concentrate in this formative period on questions of co-ordination and orientation of policy, and to deal with the vital issues now before us arising out of our desire for independence.

One other matter, Sir, which was not given publicity at the time and which has since been finalised is the agreement with the Colonial Secretary to recommend that Section 25 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council be amended by deleting the words "Ex-officio", so that in future the Chief Minister is enabled to preside at meetings of the Council of Ministers in the absence of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, or the Officer Administering the Government.

Sir, I am more than delighted to know that the only contribution that the hon. Member who represents the P.A.P. can make to the achievement of my mission is a sneer. An important matter that was raised during the talks concerned the question of citizenship for Singapore. It was represented by me and some of my colleagues to the Secretary of State that, in the light of the comments he made in Singapore, it was vital that we should know whether the Citizenship Bill which the Labour Front Ministers had prepared, of which he was given a copy, would, if passed, be disallowed under the provisions of the Royal Letters of Instruction, Section 7 (1) -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): 1 (1).

The Chief Minister: I do not take corrections from the hon. Member, Sir. My friend and colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) made it clear that he opposed the Bill, that his colleagues and considerable sections of the population drawn along racial lines were opposed to the question of two types of citizenship - one, a Singapore citizen, and the other a British national. In the course of the discussion that ensued, Sir, it was made quite clear by my hon. Friend on his own behalf and on behalf of U.M.N.O., and he assured me that we would have the support of the people he had in mind who objected to the Citizenship Bill, that if at the constitutional conference in April Singapore did achieve the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth and could then create a single Singapore citizenship, he and his colleagues would fully support a Bill to provide for a single Singapore citizenship, comprising all true Malayans, both the British subjects domiciled in Singapore and the long domiciled aliens in Singapore, subject only to the conditions of an oath of loyalty and an oath abjuring any other national loyalty. Sir, in these circumstances, and particularly realising during the course of the discussion that I was placing the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a very invidious position of indicating whether he would waive in advance the rights of Her Majesty in Council in respect of legislation coming under the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Royal Letters of Instruction, and rather than embark upon a Bill which would divide Singapore, I decided that it would be preferable to wait for a matter of six months until the results of the constitutional conference were known, because this is an issue which unquestionably would rouse, and has in a mild way already threatened to rouse, some racial emotions. It is in these circumstances, Sir, and knowing the people of this country and the forbearing patience of the domiciled races who have for years and years and years sought to attain their legitimate aspiration of full citizenship in this country, knowing their reasonableness, I felt that they themselves would prefer to wait these six months rather than anticipate what may be a full victory for all without racial divisions and without racial antagonisms. Sir, it is in these circumstances and with the solemn assurance of my colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that I did propose at that juncture - a proposal, Sir, for which I take responsibility - that this item be adjourned to the April meeting.

I would like to add, Sir, that in our discussions and negotiations with the Colonial Office, which lasted between the 10th and the 16th of December, the atmosphere was both cordial and friendly, and there did seem to be a genuine desire on the part of the Colonial Office to seek to understand sympathetically and to meet our very modest and legitimate requests. The keynote, Sir, of the whole talks was one of reasonableness and that goes for both sides.

Apart from the talks with the Colonial Office, I had interviews with the Treasury and the Bank of England officials, who indicated their willingness to support Singapore in any legitimate proposals it had for enlarging trade with Indonesia. I spoke particularly of Indonesia's request for additional hard currency allocation in respect of re-exports from Singapore of imports of Indonesian produce. I must confess, Sir, that I met with a reception which gives me every hope that this will be fully met. Both the Bank of England and the Treasury indicated that they would be happy to send observers to cooperate with us in the Pan-Malayan/Indonesian Ministerial trade talks which we expect soon to take place.

Sir, though the British Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, was ill in bed, I did wish to see him on one matter and he had the extreme courtesy to receive me and to assure me that he would give every sympathetic consideration to my suggestion that an all-Party parliamentary delegation should be sent to Singapore prior to the April talks. My anxiety there is this, Sir. I do not wish British Members of Parliament or the British people to feel that they are getting a one-sided picture of Singapore from those who are its Ministers and therefore are special pleaders. I want them to realise that what they have heard from us is the truth. I want them to send their own men - independent investigators - and I want that they should have every opportunity to discover the truth of our desires, our abilities, and the modesty, reasonableness and justness of our aspirations.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sounds very reasonable!

The Chief Minister: I would like, Sir, to express the appreciation of my colleagues and myself, with which I hope hon. Members opposite, including the leader of the P.A.P., will wish to be associated, to the British Government for the hospitality and the courtesy shown to us during our stay in England.

I have to inform hon. Members that on the 15th of December the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Her Majesty's Minister of Works, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, presented to us, as representatives of the Singapore Government, in the presence of a gathering which comprised the Chairman and Secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a stone which was part of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster. It is more than a hundred years old, Sir, and is in the form of an elaborately carved Tudor Rose. It was salvaged from the damage of the Victoria Tower in Westminster Palace, inflicted by the air-raids during the last war. Prior to my departure for England, I did mention to hon. Members on both sides of the House the possibility of the offer of this stone. May I say, Sir, that I did appreciate the fact that all Members on the Opposition Benches, as well as on the Government Benches, rose above their natural anti-colonial feeling and appreciated this gesture for a genuine act of friendship and courtesy that it is. I accepted the stone with appreciation and I hope, Sir, to have the pleasure of handing it to you on an occasion that you may arrange, so that you will receive it on behalf of the Members of the Assembly and make arrangements for its permanent incorporation in the fabric of this building. I know that all hon. Members will wish to join us in our thanks to the British Government for this symbolic gesture of friendship and unity between the two Assemblies of Westminster and Singapore in the traditions of the democratic process.

Sir, I come to one other aspect of our visit to England - our main task as we saw it - and that was to make the British people conscious of the truth of our position and the reasonableness of our aspirations, and to create, in anticipation, an atmosphere of goodwill for our forthcoming April conference. The Information Officer in Malaya House, Mr John Batten, and Mr S. C. Lim of Radio Malaya, whom I took with me as Public Press Liaison Officer, did magnificent work in preparing a most intensive programme of daily talks, meetings, broadcasts and television interviews. I understand it is estimated that almost every Member of the House of Commons heard us at some time or another; that some seven million televiewers heard and saw us; and that the radio audience was far larger. In so far as letters received and Press reports indicated, the reaction was very, very sympathetic. We were received with real interest and with friendliness. The British Labour Party, Sir, and the Fabian Society made us feel very much at home, but to my mind perhaps the outstanding incident of that visit to London, Sir, was a very large meeting of the Conservative Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Conservative Commonwealth Association which I attended and which I addressed. I realised the fact that they were seasoned politicians and that the only way to deal with them in the short time I had was to indulge in the blunt truth. I addressed them, Sir, with very considerable frankness. I think I would like to report to this House - it took me by surprise and I hope it gives hon. Members the same pleasure as it gave me - that speaker after speaker from that responsible Conservative organisation rose up and emphatically rejected the doctrine of the "nobility of colonialism" with which we have been plagued. They said, "Mr Marshall, Colonel Blimp does not live here any more."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Where has he gone to?

The Chief Minister: He is in Singapore. This responsible group of Conservatives, Sir, expressed earnest sympathy for our aspirations. I will confess that these sentiments were unexpected. I started off by telling them that I understood that they were the bottleneck to the attainment of our aspirations, but I do say this: Having heard them and having spoken to them in private, I do believe them and I am hoping that the constitutional talks next April will prove that they were not merely polite but that they were genuine and sincere. Frankly, Sir, nowhere in London did I meet with that antagonism and that petty-fogging objection to our aspiration for independence which we traditionally meet in Singapore. I could wish - and I say this in all earnestness - that the warm sympathy shown by the normal decent Englishman in England for our constitutional aspirations could be reflected in some small measure by his compatriot in this country. That would contribute very materially to the general welfare, stability and harmony essential to our progress. Independence we will have, or chaos! It is a question of choice of sides.

Whilst in London, Sir, one of the most delightful experiences was meeting the Malayan students in Malaya Hall. It was a really enjoyable gathering and I hope that hon. Members who will be going with us to the constitutional conference in April will have the privilege of meeting them, and I know they will have the same thrill and pride in those sturdy, enthusiastic and happy people who are the students of Malaya in England.

Sir, I now come to our journey through the Commonwealth nations - no less important an aspect. In fact, I consider it perhaps the most vital part of our travels. In Colombo, Sir, I was the guest of Sir John Kotelawala, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, and had the privilege of meeting the Governor-General, Sir Oliver Gooniteleke, one of the doughty warriors of independence of Ceylon. Yes, it is easy to sneer, we who walk in their footsteps, who do not know the struggle which they went through for years, and who now seek to tell us so and to obtain, with ease sitting in our arm-chairs, that which they sweated through generations to obtain. It is easy to sneer. I do not. The Prime Minister of Ceylon, Sir, asked me to express to the people of Singapore the best wishes and the sincere and active sympathy of the people of Ceylon for our constitutional aspirations. The Government of Ceylon further indicated that, should we require any assistance, they would be glad to accommodate us, whether in the realm of expert Tamil educationists to meet our vernacular education requirements or in the way of advice on our Central Bank or our Industrial Development Corporation, which subjects I discussed in a very fruitful interview with their Finance Minister.

In the two days that I spent in Colombo, Sir, I went some distance to inspect the work of a Mr Middleton of the United Nations Technical Assistance Administration, an expert who has dedicated his life to bringing low-cost housing to Asian countries. I confess, Sir, that I was impressed by his work. I am no technician, but the figures he gave and which I passed on to my colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing are impressive. Arrangements have been made to ask for Mr Middleton to be loaned to us by the United Nations, and it may well be that he will be here, Sir, at latest by the end of this year.

In Bombay, Sir, I was the guest of the Governor-General and had the pleasure of meeting that very remarkable person, the Chief Minister of Bombay Presidency, and his colleagues.

In New Delhi my colleague the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy and I were the guests of the President of India. During our four days' stay in New Delhi we had the privilege of meeting the President, the Prime Minister, Mr Nehru, and several of his Cabinet colleagues. On the 6th of December, 1955, Mr Nehru, that dynamic leader of Asian independence, gave to the Singapore Press for the Singapore people a message. I know, Sir, that it has been fully publicized, but for the pleasure, I hope, of Members in this Assembly and for the record, I would like to repeat two small parts. In one, he said:

"I am sure that the problem of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will be dealt with more adequately when the people there have the sensation of freedom and have to shoulder the responsibilities that follow it. I wish therefore all success to the people of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya in their march to freedom."

And further, Sir, just one more passage:

"We carried through our struggle for freedom over many long years in India, but did it through peaceful methods. We are firm believers in these methods not only because they yield results but also because they do not leave trails of conflict and bitterness behind them and they help build a united nation. The dominant urges in Asian countries, as well as in African countries, are nationalism and social advance. Both are essential. Nationalism leads to political freedom. In view, however, of the backwardness of many Asian countries, the question of social advance and betterment of the people generally is one of vital importance."

One tangible result, Sir - since hon. Members love tangible results - of our visit to India is the assurance received from the Government of India that they would be glad to help us, whether under the Colombo Plan or otherwise, by way of technical assistance whenever we should require it and whenever they are in a position to do so.

I am happy to report to you, Sir, and to hon. Members that information has been received from that good friend of Singapore, the Commissioner for India in Singapore, that the Indian Government is making available to the Singapore Government their most senior official on government organisation and methods in order to investigate and make recommendations on the best means for a most efficient and economic civil service organisation. The officer in question, Sir, is Mr S.B. Bapat, Establishment Officer and Director of Organisation and Methods and Vigilance Department of the Government of India.

In Pakistan my colleagues the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Local Government and I were the guests of the Governor-General, and met the Prime Minister, Mr Choudhri Mohamed Ali, and his Cabinet colleagues. I am happy to inform this House that the Prime Minister of Pakistan asked me to express to the people of Singapore his sympathy for our aspirations, which he considered to be perfectly natural. He also assured me that the Government of Pakistan would be glad to assist us in the way of study facilities for our students in any of the specialised subjects which they have.

Sir, it was a stirring journey of which the most important achievements are intangible but nevertheless vital to our future welfare. The Press and public reaction in England was most favourable and created an atmosphere which I believe augurs well for the constitutional conference next April. The friendship of the peoples of India, of Pakistan and of Ceylon for Singapore found public expression and it is very heartening, Sir, to be conscious of the fact that these great Asian nations are eager to welcome Singapore amongst the great family of independent Asian countries. It is my humble hope that Singapore can look to these new-found friends to support her in her desire to be an equal, independent member of the Commonwealth. The bitterness of racial domination and racial exploitation which they have suffered as colonies is a matter of recent memory to them. They remember, though they do not hate, in the true spirit of their immortal Gandhi. They have forgiven. Their friendship for Singapore, I honestly believe to be absolutely sincere and absolutely disinterested.

Speaking for myself, I look to them from the depths of their experience to champion the cause of Singapore in its efforts to obtain independence and to champion that cause at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers next June. We, Sir, have not made any official approaches. We have not asked for any commitments, nor have we received any commitments. You are conscious, I hope - I am very conscious, very - that under the Rendel Constitution the question of our relationships with not only foreign countries but even members of the Commonwealth is in the portfolio of the Chief Secretary and the reserved power of His Excellency. It is the present constitution. That is not democracy which is what we are seeking. My appointed colleagues and I, Sir, intend, however, to seek the permission of our official colleagues and His Excellency to approach all Commonwealth countries, not only those great Asian nations with whom we have established relations of warm friendship, but also European countries. I would like to approach them directly as soon as we are ready with memoranda of a precise nature on the subject of Singapore's aspiration. If we are to succeed in being an equal independent member of the Commonwealth, the other members of the Commonwealth are entitled to be consulted, because they are affected. I hope that they will be fully consulted before the April conference so that there will be no unnecessary delay should they wish to make their positions clear in the relevant quarters.

Sir, in this connection I would like to say this. Our approach to these Commonwealth countries must await the formation of the all-Party delegation which I promised to this Assembly in gratitude for the wonderful support we received at the time of the constitutional crisis. It must await an agreement - or at least a recognition of any disagreement - by that delegation on the broad basis of our representations. I will say this. Two constitutional advisers have already been appointed. There will be no delay on that side, and we hope shortly to appoint a leader who is a man of considerable eminence as a constitution maker.

Sir, may I take this opportunity to express the warm appreciation of the Government of Singapore, with which I hope all Members in this Assembly will associate themselves, to the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and their very helpful representatives in Singapore for the considerable courtesy, and the warm and friendly hospitality which they showed to Singapore's representatives out of love for Singapore, although we were nothing but shadow Ministers of a colonial Government?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Hear, hear!

The Chief Minister: I always face the truth! Sir, I would also like to express the appreciation of my colleagues and myself and the Government of Singapore to the British Foreign Office for the courtesy, the assistance and the hospitality which we received from the representatives of the United Kingdom in every single city at which we touched and in which we stayed.

I do apologise, Sir that I have to take up further time in this Assembly. I have a statement to make on our Baling talks. I would like to make it today unless hon. Members prefer to have it tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: It is up to you, Mr Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Very well, Sir,I shall proceed and make myself -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Could we -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chief Minister has not given way yet.

The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be more convenient for the Opposition if we could clarify the Chief Minister's statement on his pilgrimage to London before we move on to another subject.

The Chief Minister: - pilgrimage to our neighbours and visit to London. Sir, I am indebted to my hon. Friend. I have completely forgotten that aspect of it. Of course, they are entitled to ask supplementaries and certainly they will have the opportunity.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Sir, is the Chief Minister prepared to enlighten this House by saying what he meant when he and his Government used the terms 'dominion status', 'complete self-government', and 'internal self-government and independence' in relation to Singapore?

The Chief Minister: Sir, that is not an appropriate question for discussion here. I would like to say this very briefly. In Singapore, as a result of the initiative of U.M.N.O., led by my friend and colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, a meeting was called of all political Parties in Singapore - those represented in this House, those not represented, and even those not yet formed - and we all agreed upon what we sought. The phrase used was 'internal self-government' which means a fully-elected legislature in control of all government machinery other than defence and foreign affairs.

Sir, during my 'pilgrimage', as my hon. Friend the leader of the P.A.P. has so justly put it, I learned to look at it from an oppositive angle. In London I merely put it in this fashion - that for myself I would not be prepared now to seek that status which still remains colonial, but that I would rather a more positive approach be taken - independence within the Commonwealth, subject to concessions in external defence and external affairs. I am happy to say, Sir, that I have my colleagues of the Labour Front completely with me and I have a mandate from my Party. I am also happy to report that my friend and colleague the leader of the Alliance has indicated his full support for this approach. The exact details I would like to work out in private at this all-Party conference and in consultation with the constitutional adviser whom, if we find it necessary, we could ask to come down to Singapore before our departure.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister's statement has raised various questions in our minds. Will the Chief Minister allow a debate on the statement that he has just made instead of our only asking questions?

The Chief Minister: Sir, I can see no purpose in a debate, but naturally hon. Members are at liberty to place a motion before the House and I can assure them that they will find no obstruction from me. But I do not think they ought to ask for the initiative from me. I can see nothing controversial. It may well be that they do.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Can the Chief Minister clarify a report in the local Press not long ago that he preferred dominion status for this Colony?

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Hon. Members must remember that questions at this stage must only be directed to the statement in order to elucidate certain matters which have been raised in the statement itself, and we cannot have any debate.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, did not the Chief Minister realise that, if he wanted to lead an unanimous all-Party delegation, the introduction of something new like dominion status, and speaking for himself to the world Press in London, was perhaps not the best approach to the problem?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Chief Minister has just said that he had discussions about internal self-government with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which subject will be on the agenda of the coming conference, that is, if the Opposition agrees to that. What is the difference between the self-government which the elected Members of this Assembly passed unanimously and his internal self-government? Is there any difference?

The Chief Minister: Sir, I would like to make my position clear to hon. Members. I did not discuss with the Secretary of State what this Assembly would seek. I had to tell him what was in my mind so as to avoid having the constitutional conference pinned down to discussing internal self-government. I wanted to make it clear that that phrase did not limit us, and in order to explain why, I told him what was my personal view: that there was no question of discussion or obtaining views.

As regards the second part of the question of the Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, there is this distinction: the internal self-government which we were considering to seek still left us a colonial status and still left us a Governor with reserved powers - it is a negative position. We are still a colony. I want an end to colonialism. It is a positive approach to the problem - independence within the Commonwealth. You are a free territory, and freely and voluntarily you make an agreement ceding aspects of defence and foreign affairs. That is the difference.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, may I ask this question arising out of the statement which the Hon. the Chief Minister has just made? Suppose a delegation goes to London and if they discuss self-government or dominion status or independence, will they refuse to discuss those questions that have not been set down?

Mr Speaker: That is something that arises in the future.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Would this new type of a nation, which becomes free and then voluntarily becomes part-slave by surrendering a vital part of its independence, be entitled to send a representative to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

Mr Speaker: I think there has been too much debate. I will not allow that question.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): While I realise, Sir, that the question might invite personal annihilation, I should like the Chief Minister perhaps to elucidate what he meant by saying that Colonel Blimp is no longer in England but is indeed in Singapore.

The Chief Minister: There is a delightful English proverb that says: Where the cap fits, wear it!

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): The Chief Minister in his statement stated that there was an all-Party conference on the definition of internal self-government. Would he not confirm that that conference was called just to define what is internal self-government and that the chairman of that conference did signify that it had nothing to do with the December London mission?

The Chief Minister: No, Sir. It was quite clearly emphasised repeatedly that the purpose of that meeting was to clarify what was intended by this Assembly in the use of the term 'self-government' at the time we passed that wonderful motion during the constitutional crisis.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I deny this!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: But that motion used the words 'immediate self-government'. Who introduced, and when, the words 'internal self-government'?

Mr Speaker: I cannot allow any further questions.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: If it pleases you, Sir.