CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's permission for this motion to be proceeded with. I will read, Sir, a few passages from the Washington Declaration:

"We are conscious that in this year of 1956, there still rages the age-old struggle between those who believe that man has his origin and his destiny in God and those who treat man as if he were designed merely to serve a State machine.

Hence, we deem it useful to declare again certain truths and aims upon which we are united and which we are persuaded are supported by all free nations.

Because of our belief that the State should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the State, we uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice.

These beliefs of ours are far more than theory or doctrine. They have been translated into the actual conduct of our policy both domestic and foreign. We are parties to the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter, the Potomac Charter, and the Pacific Charter. In them we have, with other friends, dedicated ourselves to the goal of self-government and independence of all countries whose people desire and are capable of sustaining an independent existence. During the past 10 and more years 600 million men and women in nearly a score of lands have, with our support and assistance, attained nationhood. Many millions more are being helped surely and steadily toward self-government. Thus, the reality and effectiveness of what we have done is a proof of our sincerity.

Further, we know that political independence cannot alone assure men and nations full opportunity to pursue happiness and to fulfil their highest destiny. There is, likewise, need for economic sustenance and growth. This, too, we have helped to provide. We seek to develop with others a large volume of mutually beneficial trade.

Likewise we seek, through technical assistance, the Colombo Plan and other programmes we support, to help economic progress in the less developed countries and to raise the living standards of their peoples. In these programmes we have not sought nor desired extension of either economic or political power. The purpose is not to dilute but to enrich and secure their freedom.

While resolutely pursuing these aims, which are the products of our faith in God and in the peoples of the earth, we shall eagerly grasp any genuine opportunity to free mankind of the pall of fear and insecurity which now obscures what can and should be a glorious future.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER ANTHONY EDEN."

It is in these sonorous terms, Sir, that two great leaders of the free world have shown their understanding of the cry of subjugated people for freedom and have promised their unselfish aid and support - moral and material. In the context of this Declaration, Sir, Singapore's struggle is but part of a world pattern accepted as natural, as healthy and even as praiseworthy. There is therefore no need to explain why we want independence and no need to explain to these statesmen why we want freedom, but the Prime Minister and the President have made it clear that their support and assistance is conditional on two factors. The first is that the people desire an independent existence.

Sir, prior to Merdeka Week, I freely admit that I was genuinely alarmed at assertions made in very responsible quarters that the people of Singapore wanted to pursue their normal vocations and were not interested in political advance and that the call of Merdeka came from a strident minority of intellectuals. It seemed to me, Sir, that such a view could have very dangerous repercussions for Singapore. It then seemed to me that it was vital that we should impress upon all observers who could influence the Colonial Office of the truth, and this had to be done before the 23rd.

We have seen in other parts of the world and we see today the tragic cost of wisdom after the event. We wanted none of this wisdom after the event and I would like to say for myself, Sir, I am deeply grateful to all Parties in this House, and to the majority of the Press, for recognising the peril and awakening the people of Singapore to the dangers. Despite a sectional campaign of vilification, distortion and sometimes plain filth, the deep swell of the people's wish came through the smokescreen clearly and firmly and I am glad to say that I have not since heard any single responsible person deny that the great majority of the people of Singapore actively desire an end to colonial rule. Sir, that first condition of the Washington Declaration can therefore be taken to be admittedly satisfied.

The second condition is that the people are capable of sustaining an independent existence. In the Colonial Office, this is transformed into that famous three-word question before which every colonial delegation trembles. The question is, "Are you viable?" That means merely, Sir, "Are you capable of surviving economically without any special external economic assistance?" and the answer for Singapore is "Definitely, yes!" It is true, Sir, we receive assistance, for which we are grateful, from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. We receive some assistance from the Colombo Plan. They are helpful but they are not essential to our economy. We go to London, Sir, to seek the gift of our freedom. We go to seek no gift of money, either in subsidy or in interest free loan or under any other name whatsoever. Singapore financially undertakes to stand on its own feet. The second condition of the Washington Declaration, signed but two months ago by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is therefore fulfilled and we can now truthfully say to the United Kingdom Government, "Singapore is a ripe opportunity for the exercise of those noble, humanitarian principles embodied in the Washington Declaration. Help us to our feet."

Now, Sir, the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) says, "What is this freedom?" It is independence we seek. That is absolute. It is independence within the British Commonwealth, and that is no qualification of the absolute as the Prime Minister of India has so clearly demonstrated. Why do we want to be within the Commonwealth? Sir, the Commonwealth is a United Nations within the United Nations - a more flexible instrument for co-operation because there is no constitution; a more efficient instrument because the close day-to-day relations of the individual members make for a practical partnership. The over-emphasis on European interests is progressively disappearing and the concept of the Commonwealth is emerging as the most powerful instrument for peace and freedom in the world of today. Furthermore, let us remember, we who survive by virtue of our trading activities, that our trade is appreciably within the Commonwealth. Singapore is prepared to contribute in full measure to the defence requirements of the Commonwealth. Singapore would welcome an equal opportunity to contribute to the Commonwealth's policies Singapore, Sir, would be proud to be a partner with the other independent States within this association known as the Commonwealth.

Having reached this formula, Sir, of independence within the Commonwealth as the framework of our own desires, we must look at the vital interests of other territories in this area. We do recognise that Singapore is a very important fort in the defence strategy of the Commonwealth and its allied nations of the free world. This is known, and quite erroneously, as the problem of the external defence of Singapore. I say quite erroneously, Sir, because it has nothing whatever to do with the defence of Singapore as such. The primary factor is the defence of the other members of the Commonwealth and the allied nations from Singapore and not the defence of Singapore. Now, Sir, having clarified this concept of external defence, the question does arise: should Singapore concede to the Commonwealth the right to use this island as a fort? We are realists - I hope all of us - and, as realists, we first face the brutal facts and the outstanding one is that we could not refuse it even if we wanted to. As a reasonable people, we face realities and accept them. This is the reality we must face: that Singapore is vital to the free world strategy to a point that makes it unreasonable and impractical to refuse its use as a fort. In these circumstances, I understand all Parties are agreed that we should allow the Commonwealth through the United Kingdom the fullest facilities for their defence needs.

Sir, I would like to add this for myself, for some Members on the Government Benches and I trust for some Members on the Opposition Benches. There are other reasons both moral and material which support this decision. There are those of us, and of them I am one, who believe with all our hearts that the institution of parliamentary democracy is the finest political institution for the full development of the people. We believe it is an institution worth fighting and worth dying for. We believe Singapore should take its place shoulder to shoulder with the other States of the Commonwealth and the free world in any armed struggle to defend the ideals of freedom and parliamentary democracy. We also believe that Singapore should shoulder the obligations as well as the privileges of its unique geographical position and finally, Sir, it may seem sordid but it is an important point, I would remind Members of the House that one-sixth of our labour force is employed by the armed forces and the contribution of the armed forces to our economy is quite considerable. Therefore, Sir, whether we approach this problem as practical men only or whether we approach it as practical and moral men, the answer is the same. We are all agreed that concurrently with independence, we will give all necessary control for United Kingdom defence commitments. This agreement I understand all Parties are prepared to undertake to honour.

Now, Sir, external defence is to some extent affected by external relations and by internal security. In the realm of external relations, we seek for Singapore the right of full relations with other States both within and without the Commonwealth - the right to appoint ambassadors and High Commissioners, in fact, the full right of an independent territory - and we are agreed that where action in the realm of external affairs affects the external defence commitments of the United Kingdom, we shall act in consultation with Her Majesty's Government. Sir, let there be no misunderstanding on that. In matters of peace and war, in all major matters which affect the external defence commitments of the Commonwealth, we are prepared to agree to accept the advice of Her Majesty's Government and to follow it.

The other question, Sir, which has been actively occupying our minds is the question of internal security and especially two aspects of it. The first aspect is: to what extent the Government of Singapore which wants inde- pendence can be said to be able to maintain internal security with its own forces. Now, Sir, since the war, we have had a really delightful arrangement with the Federation. By this arrangement, the Federation raises all the military forces necessary for Malaya's defence purposes and Singapore raises all the naval forces necessary for the defence of the coast of Malaya. I trust that I need not remind Members of this House that Malaya includes Singapore. Sir, this arrangement has worked exclusively for the benefit of the Federation. The Federation has a Federation Regiment which is being used only in the Federation and we on our part are spending many millions of dollars every year on a Navy employing 84 per cent Federation subjects whose operational duties are almost wholly in Federation waters for Federation purposes. We receive no payment at all for these services. It can therefore be seen that we have no regular army units. We have a part-time trained Singapore Military Force. We have a particularly costly Navy beyond our immediate needs and of little value for internal security purposes and we have a well-trained Police Force of some six thousand persons. I am advised, Sir, and this I am prepared to believe, that this is inadequate for the maintenance of order in the event of an organised and maliciously directed major outburst of violence. In the light of this advice, the Government is proceeding apace with the establishment of an operational Singapore Battalion by the 1st of April, 1957; and let me say this, Sir, I am told that even that may be difficult. We would be quite ready to raise two Battalions if that were possible within the time. Even with that additional Battalion, which is expected to be operational in April, 1957, we are advised that it would be a matter of prudence for us to enter into arrangements whereby the Government of Singapore can call upon Her Majesty's Forces for assistance in the event of our Forces being inadequate for the restoration of internal security. We are very ready to enter into any arrangement of that character, but it seems that there is a possibility that the United Kingdom may not be prepared to give military assistance in the event of complete breakdown of internal security unless it has some control over the normal conduct of internal security in this area. Frankly, Sir, our view of the matter is very simple. To cede any control over internal security is to make a mockery of independence. We are or we are not free and if Her Majesty's Government insists on control over our internal security Forces, the Labour Front will be no party to any agreement that may be arrived at.

The other facet of this question, Sir, is that the Armed Forces may well desire some form of guarantee that the external defence installations and the arrangements for external defence efficacy would not be prejudiced by a serious deterioration of the internal security position. Sir, this question is under very active consideration by Members of this House forming the All-Party Delegation and by our Constitutional Adviser and I can say that we are hopeful that some acceptable formula can be arrived at. I do wish it understood, Sir, that the people of Singapore go to this Constitutional Conference in a spirit of utmost reasonableness prepared to seek what is just for all parties and not only what is right for us.

I have outlined, Sir, broadly, the framework of our aspirations worked out with full consideration for the interests of the United Kingdom as we know it, for it must be understood that apart from an abortive attempt made from Switzerland for a better understanding of Colonial Office attitude on some of the issues, I have not been in touch with the Colonial Office either directly or indirectly and when we do meet in London, we must anticipate that there will be a contribution of ideas from the Colonial Office which may materially affect our thinking on the approach to the problem of protecting United Kingdom interests within the framework of our desire for an end to colonial rule.

In essence, Sir, the answer to the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) is that we seek full legislative autonomy and equality in status with other independent members of the Commonwealth. We seek an end to Official Members of the Council, an end to Official and Nominated Members of the Assembly and an end to all the Governor's veto powers. In fact, Sir, under the type of constitution we envisage, there will be no Governor. Her Majesty's representative will have only the decorative and necessary functions associated with the monarchy under parliamentary rule.

Sir, there is one other aspect of our talks in London on which I wish to touch. It is a matter that has been hovering like a small but persistent cloud on the political horizon since first we took office. I refer to the citizenship question. I think the House is aware that the Labour Front considers that there can be no true democracy unless there is an honourable solution of the citizenship problem. It is our hope that the issue of citizenship will be solved by the creation of a single Singapore nationality by the Singapore Independent Act which we seek from the United Kingdom to establish our freedom. The House is aware of the firm assurances of my hon. Friend the leader of the Alliance that he would support provisions for a single Singapore citizenship. Nevertheless, Sir, there does exist the possibility that the provision for citizenship will be manoeuvred out of the main constitutional talks and should that occur, Sir, I give the House this assurance: that the Labour Front Ministers as Ministers of the Singapore Government will press in London and, later, in Singapore, for a clear and early finalisation of this issue whatever the political cost.

Sir, perhaps it will be appropriate at this juncture to deal with some of the objections and with some of the arguments we have heard advanced against the fulfilment of our aspirations. We who are here are Malayans and it may well be that these objections will not find voice or sufficient expression of a stridency which they do find outside, but I think it is important that the people of Malaya should know what the objections are and that the people of Singapore should know what the answers are.

The first one I will take, Sir, is one that is beloved of Colonel Blimp. It goes something like this: "Singapore was a swamp with a few malarial fisherfolk. We bought it. We paid for it. We own it. With our brains and capital, we made it one of the greatest ports in the world and if you do not like it, you can take a running jump to the land of your forefathers." Sir, the principal element in the growth of Singapore is its geographical position at a time of increasing trade between East and West, and not even Blimp has suggested that the colonial power should take credit for Singapore being where it is or for the opening up of trade between West and East. The second main element of Singapore's growth is the amazing adaptability, mercantile acumen and vitality of our people and here, Sir, it would be dishonest not to concede, and we concede freely, that British administrative traditions, British commercial acumen and British capital played a key role in the commercial development of this port; but to seek to hog the whole credit is a shameless perversion of the truth - the truth of magnificent co-operative effort between the various races, both Eastern and Western, resident in this island for more than a century. Sir, even if this were not so, even if it were not that Singapore's prosperity is due to no single race but to practical and harmonious partnership between different races, and even if one could accept the legalistic concept that Singapore is owned by the United Kingdom, I would remind Members that one can own land but one does not own human beings. Colonialism may have been adequate at a time when all were equally transients. Today when we have more than a million domiciled inhabitants, it is utterly untenable. Colonialism in such circumstances, Sir, corrupts the ruler and warps the ruled.

Having referred to Blimp, Sir, I think it would be appropriate to take cognizance, by way of contrast, of a group of responsible British mercantile men who have written to me and agreed to the publication of their letter indicating that they consider the interests of British capital and British community in Singapore are identical with the interests of the people of Singapore. This is the first gesture of goodwill and understanding on the part of this very important community and I welcome it as one welcomes the first flowers of Spring; for let this be clearly understood: the British community may be transients; British capital is not transient. British capital has played a vital role in the development of Singapore and it has a vital role to play in the future development of Singapore. We need the activities of British capital and British capital needs the outlet of facilities of Singapore. We can both benefit, and benefit richly, if there is statesmanlike acceptance of the realities and genuine desire for friendly and honest co-operation. Sir, may I take the opportunity of expressing the hope that today at least Mr Sutherland, who has been appointed to represent British capital in this Assembly, will be equal to his opportunity and will be adequate to interpret this new spirit infusing the British community when he approaches the issues involved in this motion?

Another objection, Sir, which we have heard is that Singapore is too small to be an independent territory. Researches of our constitutional advisers, Sir, have proved that Singapore will learn, when our memorandum to the Secretary of State is published, that Singapore can proudly take its place as an elder brother to many of the independent States who are members of the United Nations today, older in the status of population and income.

Still another objection, Sir, is that the true destiny of Singapore is as part of the concept of the great Malayan nation and that we should not seek independence - an independence without meaning - outside that concept. I think this House is aware that the people and the Government of Singapore have since last August repeatedly shown their realisation that only unity between the Federation and Singapore can bring into being a truly great Malayan nation and that without such unity, there is grave danger to the very survival of both entities. I would like to make this clear, Sir. We have both officially and informally repeatedly suggested to the Government of the Federation that urgent consideration should be given to the question of a merger so necessary for the healthy growth of both units, but consideration has been as repeatedly postponed first on the ground that Singapore as a strategic base would never achieve independence and could only be a drag on the Federation which was seeking its own independence and now, Sir, on the ground that the issue would delay and complicate the recommendations of the Commission on the Federation's future constitution. We, who represent the people of Singapore in this House, are deeply conscious of the elemental truth that neither territory can go far along separate ways and that in unity we have the potential of a nation of strength and stature. Also as practical men, we say we cannot await the pleasure of the Federation before we seek an end to colonial rule. Our desire for a merger is concurrent but subordinate to our desire for freedom from colonialism. One does not conflict with the other and if we do achieve independence, we shall still be hoping that the Federation will be equal to the rich opportunities which today's circumstances offer.

An objection of more substance, Sir, that seems to find an echo amongst some of our people is that Singapore is pursuing the goal of independence at far too rapid a pace. I do appreciate the courtesy of our opponents in not reminding the Labour Front that our Four Year Programme calls for self-government within four years but we, Sir, who never seek to shirk the truth, are conscious of that and being conscious we say in all sincerity, "Today, we know, delay could be, would be, fatal."

Since coming to office, Sir, we have learned that the problem of Communism is of a far graver and more pressing character than we understood as citizens, that Communism is utilising the mask of nationalism in order to gain support and through this technique is endangering the very existence of the people of this island. We have learned that you cannot ask a subject people to assist the colonial power to exterminate Communism. We of the Labour Front-Alliance Government have for twelve months been bedevilled in having to divide our energies between the struggle for an end of colonial rule and the struggle against the true enemy of the people - the Communists. In such division of effort, Sir, lies failure. Experience has taught us also that it is in the highest degree unwise to use the Oliver Twist technique of taking a little and being ready to go back for more. That way lies instability, and political instability in this territory is the very meat of Communism and is the very poison, Sir, of our commercial existence. We have been reminded of this by the outgoing President of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce but he did not indicate the way to stability. Maybe the way, and the only way that any honest man can see, was one that was unpalatable to him. We believe, Sir, that stable conditions can only be achieved if there is an end to our struggle with the United Kingdom and if there is an honourable agreement for the foreseeable future guiding our relations. It is only if we can feel, "This is it. This is the end of our struggle", that we can turn round and move forward as a free people united firmly in the will to survive against the leprous forces of this foreign ideology we call Communism. That is the only hope, Sir, to stability and the time is now.

There are those who say. "Go slow." Sir, when the embryo in the egg grows to the point of being ready to peck its way through to the free world and fresh air, does it make any sense to say. "Go slow, little chicken. Stay a few more days there. Grow stronger and bigger so that you can better meet the wicked weather of this world"? To go slow in those circumstances would mean death. To stay longer in that egg would mean suffocation. Unless, Sir, the people of Singapore can, in the words of Mr Nehru, "savour the sensation of freedom", the time will be too late to call upon them for that mass dynamic effort to meet the peril that is already within our gates. It is not the bullets of the armed forces that will save us from Communism. It is only the spirit of the people and you can only have that spirit if the people are free. So, Sir, though in our humility we have originally envisaged four years for self-government, we say, "After twelve months' experience, in all sincerity, today is not too soon for independence." In fact, Sir, the brutal truth is that today may be too late.

Sir, I have earlier indicated what I consider to have been the very valuable activities of the public-spirited people of Singapore during Merdeka Week. One aspect of Merdeka Week, however, Sir, has brought to light an objection that was till then dormant. The disorderly conduct of a small crowd at the end of the rally of the 18th of March has been so exaggerated, so repeatedly played up in an able Press campaign that it has transformed the incident into fantastic proportions with considerable psychological repercussions. Sections of minority races in Singapore who till then were happy to envisage the possibility of an early end to colonialism have been whipped up to a pitch of fear of possible subjugation by the Chinese people. As one man put it, Sir, "If freedom means the rule of the majority, you are going to replace the arrogance of the Englishman by the arrogance of the Chinese. What do we benefit? We prefer the devil we know to the devil we do not know." Sir, an insidious part of this campaign has been to associate the dangers of Communism with the natural predominance of the Chinese in a democracy. Sir, the minority races are, in fact, somewhat confused as to what they fear. It is a composite picture of fearing what one man called, "Peking Merdeka". Sir, in every democratic country, there are minorities and the protection of minority rights is inherent in the very concept of democracy. Sometimes, such protection is incorporated in a constitution. At other times, it is just understood, Sir. It is part of the very breath of that concept of political institutions we call "parliamentary democracy". For democracy does not merely mean the rule of the majority. It means the rule of the majority taking full consideration of the needs and the interests of all minority races. Merdeka does not mean, Sir, and it can never mean, the replacement of English arrogance by Chinese arrogance, English rule by Chinese rule. Merdeka means the replacement of English rule by our own rule, the rule of the people of Singapore of whom the majority are Chinese, and we can naturally expect that they will be prominent and predominant in shaping the policies of Government. It is very wrong, Sir, to assume that our Chinese fellow-citizens would find the wine of power so heady as to go berserk and seek the destruction of legitimate minority interests. It is wrong not to give our fellow-citizens the credit for the very real virtues which they possess.

It is true, Sir, that in the past few months, there has been greater prominence placed on certain unhappy aspects of the activities of small sections of our country's population but let us recognise that, for generations, the Chinese have had a very raw deal. I am of a minority race through centuries, Sir. I can recognise and feel for discriminatory treatment towards minority races and my heart feels and understands the bitterness in the hearts of the Chinese who have for generations received discriminatory minority race treatment in this territory. This is the heritage of decades but when they receive full recognition, full participation in government and when, in fact, they find that they are largely responsible for the conduct of the government, I believe that there will flower not Chinese arrogance but the Chinese virtues of reasonableness and of justice. The Chinese are a vital race and they have a great deal to contribute to the future. We should rather look forward to the flowering of their virtues in common with other races in this territory under the just reign of a parliamentary democracy.

Sir, the only argument of any validity which I have heard is that in normal times my analysis of the development of the Chinese community in Singapore might be right but today we are going through an abnormal period of militant Communist expansion rampant in Asia viewing Singapore as the ideal point for further expansion in South-East Asia and, in these conditions, we can expect heavy pressure of indoctrination on local citizens for subversive Communist purposes and that, in these circumstances, we can expect tactics to maintain bitterness, to maintain and sharpen inter-racial antagonism and to prevent consolidation of Chinese loyalty and co-operation to the land. It is argued that Communists are never in the majority when they take power but act as a well-disciplined minority. Their technique is to mislead workers, peasants and students, to work up discontent and chaos and then by surprise action to seek to slit the throat of democracy and take over control and once in control, Sir, that is the end of human liberties; for though one can turn out the Progressive Party - one might even hope to turn out the Labour Front Coalition Government - once a Communist or a Communist-camouflaged Party is in power, there are no more elections and all is tyranny. I will not deny, Sir, that that is the danger. It is a very real danger but it is not a danger which we can escape by refusing to grow. It is not a danger we can escape by remaining a Colony. It is a danger we can overcome only if the people of Singapore can act as a united, intelligent and loyal group, and this includes the Chinese people as well as all minority races. We must act as one to preserve our freedom and the heritage of our children. This is our danger. This is also our opportunity and a wonderful and dynamic opportunity; for in the face of this danger, we must be conscious that we either produce a united people with full co-operation between all races, with full trust between all races and complete loyalty of all races to Singapore, or we perish. If we succeed, Sir, we might well make this small point on the map of the world the centre of a new stabilising force for the whole of Asia. One cannot live, Sir, unless one has faith in life, faith in the future and faith in one's capacity to overcome the myriad dangers that human beings must face.

Sir, I hate colonialism. I have lived under it all my life and I hate Communism because I hate colonialism and because Communism is a more vicious and more brutal concept of colonialism. If I thought that independence would bring about the tyranny of Communism in this territory, I would fight Merdeka. I do say, Sir, I believe that it is through Merdeka that there is any hope of reaching safety and I say to the people of Singapore - all races - that we must have faith in ourselves. We must have faith in the future. This is the road of life, Sir, the road of natural growth through freedom with all its dangers and with all its opportunities and the road lies through Merdeka. Sir, I move,

That this Assembly affirms, in the name of the people of Singapore, its belief in the principle of "the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice", as enunciated in the Washington Declaration signed by Sir ANTHONY EDEN, Prime Minister of the the United Kingdom, and President EISENHOWER President of the United States of America, on the 1st of February, 1956;

And its belief that the long term welfare of Singapore lies in close and friendly co-operation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories;

Therefore the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion which stands in the name of the Chief Minister. In doing so, I hope he will forgive me if I make this introductory observation.

There are two parts in this motion: the preamble which itself consists of two parts - the affirmation of the principle enunciated in Washington, and the other, the belief that our future lies with the British Commonwealth - and what I would call the operative part -

"Therefore the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that my freedom is a matter for argument and that I must justify why I must be free. I am interested to know that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sir Anthony Eden, Knight of the Garter, have reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination.

My approach to the problem and the approach of my Party is a straightforward and practical one. If you confront the British Government with an alternative more unpleasant than the one you ask of them, then the chances are that you will get the less unpleasant alternative.

Freedom is the birthright of all peoples everywhere in this world. Because my forefathers migrated for purely selfish economic reasons to what they call the South Seas, a whole generation of some two million Chinese are today left in Malaya with Malaya as their only home and, necessarily thereby, the sole object of their loyalty. The generation that I belong to grew up under British colonial rule. It is always easy to say, "Let us forget the past. After all, that was colonialism. It was a mistake. Now, let us get together and let us be friends." Commendable sentiment, Sir, and one to which I would subscribe if I found that there was sufficient sincerity on the other side. If I believe that the British are no longer interested in either economic, political or military advantages to themselves more than to me, then there would be a basis for friendly, comradely cooperation. That is the problem which faces Britain and the people of Singapore and Malaya.

When all the high-sounding words have died down, one has to search one's conscience and say, "Am I happier this way or that way?" Speaking for my Party, I do not think that we have the slightest doubt that we are happier if British control were gone.

I would have thought myself that the first part of the preamble would have embarrassed the British Prime Minister. It was only recently that the constitution of British Guiana was suspended. It was said that there, a great error had been made; that, in fact, self-determination is only possible where you have an educated and an enlightened electorate and not where you have largely an uneducated mass of people incapable of thinking for themselves but led by political extremists. I shall come back to that point at a later stage, Sir,

As to the second half which reads:

"And its belief that the long term welfare of Singapore lies in close and friendly cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories;",

I think it is safe to say that no country in Asia or indeed any part of the world, unless it is the United States of America or the Soviet Union, can stand by itself and pursue a completely independent policy. We live in an age where balance of power in the old sense of the word has been modified into balance of regional power groups. The British Commonwealth is such a power group and as long as it is to the interest of countries like India, Pakistan and Ceylon to stay within the British Commonwealth, then it might be to our interest to be part of this co-operative experimental enterprise. Of course, there were the cynics who, when India got her independence and stayed within the Commonwealth, said that it was not without an eye to the large sterling balances then owing by the United Kingdom to the Indian Government. I would like to believe that the Indian leaders honestly and sincerely felt that perhaps the old world concept of narrow, rigid nationalistic boundaries and racialistic approaches should slowly give way to a wider and more liberal, a more humane and satisfying fellowship of all men. The British Commonwealth is perhaps unique in the history of empires in that it did not crumble into dust and break away into its component parts when the centrifugal force broke down. If there had not been World War II, if there had not been the Japanese occupation, a lot of things that we talk about today would not have happened. The old pattern broke down after the end of the Second World War. The astonishing thing is that even though the power which governs by force is gone, a new pattern of that empire, perhaps at this stage an amorphous concept, has somehow emerged.

For us in Singapore, or even if we were to add the Federation; for us in Malaya, it is not possible to make any decisive changes in the course of history in South-East Asia. There are bigger, larger and more decisive forces than Malayan nationalism. But one thing is certain. We cannot survive by ourselves in the international world unless we also belong to some group. It may well be that, like Siam, we can play off one side against the other and always trust to the United Nations Security Council to prevent either of the two big power blocs from toppling us on to their side irrevocably. But for the time being, as long as some 300 million Indians find that it is an advantage to remain within the British Commonwealth, there is no reason why seven million Malayans should not continue on a friendly basis the associations of trade and commerce and other cultural activities that have existed for over a hundred years between us and the British. All this, of course, presupposes that after April, we will get a constitutional advance. I hope we will.

There are three things that the British Government can do: meet us the whole way, meet us somewhere along the way, or not budge at all. Taking the three alternatives in the reverse order, if they do not budge at all: the Hon. the Chief Minister has already indicated that he does not propose to stay in office. In other words, the British Government must be prepared to revoke the constitution and run Singapore once again as a Crown colony in every sense of the word. The long-term consequences - I would not say the immediate conse- quences, for those can be controlled and contained - of such a policy would be catastrophic to the British. Whether it would be equally catastrophic to Malaya depends upon one's point of view, whether one believes in "revolution" as used by Marxists or whether one believes in revolution as used by Laski. I prefer, not because I am incapable of warlike activities, the evolutionary approach. It is less painful and everybody feels a little bit better about it when it is all over.

I do not believe for one moment that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is completely ignorant of the underlying political situation in Malaya and, therefore, I am personally convinced that it would take a lot of other secret considerations before the British Government says, "No, and absolutely no!"

As for the other two alternatives, if one were to put them in the balance, the logical conclusion is that the British Government will find it wise to meet us all along the way. To meet us part of the way would just sour any possible political kudos that might be obtained from a graceful withdrawal. I do not think any country in the world can more gracefully withdraw from an already untenable position than the British. I think they understand, and I hope the six prominent gentlemen from the British House of Commons will help the others to understand, that this is almost "an already untenable position".

Sir, my Party manifesto says, "We believe in immediate independence." Perhaps the Hon. the Chief Minister will forgive me if I spend a few minutes in explaining to the House why the P.A.P. has apparently departed from this stand. So many things have happened in Singapore since the elections held in March last year that sometimes one feels that one has lived through a decade, not just a year. One thing is fairly certain. No individual political force is in control in Malaya. The British when they put in the Rendel Constitution believed, and they thought they were right in believing, that it would lead to a mild, gradual phasing of the different stages of evolution towards this very desirable state of self-government.

Sir, the P.A.P. took the lid off the last elections and out popped the Labour Front. Sir, in this three-cornered fight that is going on in Malaya - the British, the Communists and the Nationalists - the position will not be re-patterned if the British freeze the constitution. It is a simple problem if one approaches it from the local man's point of view. Every time the Communist fights the British, the Nationalist says to himself, "Ah, good, that will weaken him and perhaps I will come in." Every time the Nationalist gives the British one hard knock, the Communist says, "Good show. That will knock him out. Then I will come in." As long as the British are here the common target, the common foe are the British. It is not possible to face the question "What Malaya are we going to have?" The immediate question is, "Can we get rid of the British?" A very eminent old gentleman who was knighted by the British Government and who is still very much alive once told me in an unguarded moment, which might have cost him the revocation of his knighthood if he had been overheard, "I don't like the Communists but every time they beat the British, I say 'Good, I have got a better chance to win now.'" It is the most natural sentiment, the most natural reaction when you are fighting a common foe. When the British fought the Germans, they were great friends with Marshal Stalin and they fought the Germans together. I say that if such a situation goes on much longer, the outcome will be victory to the local force that is more tightly organised to seize power. Eventually a point will be reached where, like the French in Indo China, the Colony is no longer worthwhile, and then they say. "Well, let us call a halt to it" and, as in Indo-China, the Communist Party being the most tightly organised group naturally took the leadership.

There have been two patterns of development in South-East Asia since the war. One is the Indian pattern and the other is the Indo-Chinese pattern. In the Indian pattern, you had a nationalist group there leading the fight against the British long before the Indian Communist Party ever came into being. They had the initiative. They had the organisation. They had attracted all the men with the guts and the ability and the desire for freedom. When the time came, they were able to assume power as of right, for power is not a counter to be bargained for and handed over. Power is something to be fought for and won. If you have the wherewithal to take it and to run it, nothing will stop you. The difficulty for Malaya is that, unlike India, there was a Communist movement some thirty years before the first spark of nationalism spread and caught fire. That is the problem which we face today in Malaya, not just in Singapore, though some people in the Federation might wish to believe that the situation in the Federation is something different. It is a situation which is endemic.

Sir, my Party believes in an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya: independent, because we want to get rid of the British or anybody else who wants to run this country; democratic, because we want to elect our leaders by popular and free elections; non-Communist, because we want free elections, not a choice on a straight one-Party ticket, and because we do not want to be involved in a fight between two world power blocs and power ideologies. To a certain extent, it might be termed an escapist philosophy. It may be that ultimately one has to choose. The time may come. When it does, perhaps India will have to opt, and when India opts, I think the whole of South-East Asia will opt with her. The destiny of Malaya will be determined more by forces outside Malaya than by forces inside Malaya. No one could have foreseen after the war the tremendous change that would occur when the Imperial powers disappeared from Asia. No one could have foreseen the emergence of a tightly organised and effective China. No one could have believed that within ten years of the end of the war, the British Government would decide that the time had come for a radical change of policy. It took them a long time to decide this. They tried General Templer first.

Sir, I may be wrong in my appraisal of the situation. I may be wrong in believing that the British have weighed the situation and have decided that the best way to meet such a situation is to remove themselves from the Malayan political arena. If I am wrong, then I have no choice and then it becomes a straightforward fight between the British versus the rest. But if I am right in my appraisal of the situation, that if the British have decided that in any event they will lose and they would rather lose to those who might carry on the liberal forms of government which the Chief Minister referred to as parliamentary democracy, then, if we can provide that other force, I think British interest -

The Chief Minister: And our interest.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - and, I hope our interest demand that the British remove themselves.

Sir, this proviso -

"...to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations..."

is an euphemistic way of saying that we realise the British will not give us complete independence because then it would mean upsetting international arrangements and international bases in the world defence strategy. Instead of going the whole distance, we therefore go part of the distance towards independence. But I must say this: no self-respecting Nationalist can say that that would be a satisfactory state of affairs for any length of time. I do not know about Oliver Twist. I never liked Charles Dickens. But I do know this. As a step towards independence and to seek common ground with every political Party in this House, we join in this demand that we should have the status of an independent State conceding or offering an agreement whereby we lose control of foreign affairs and defence. This can only be a phase. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. No man can formally postulate that you will be always not quite a full man. There are forces in Asia more powerful than the British. It is my hope that all the Nationalist groups in Singapore and Malaya will be alive to the identity of their common interests and will together, not as an independent Singapore and an independent Federation but together, as one unit, seek, in the not too distant future, that complete nationhood. Either you fight for that, or else you give up the struggle.

After April, we will probably have a new constitution. It will probably be one which can be revoked - a revocable constitution - but the change that will take place in the mind of the people of Singapore is an irrevocable one, just as the change that took place with the Rendel Constitution was an irrevocable change.

The astonishing thing about political events in Singapore is that very few realise at the time they happen the full significance of the events. The Progressive Party did not know nor did they imagine that when they gave way to adult suffrage and automatic registration, it meant political suicide for a small English educated middle-class-based Party, and I do not think this House, when it agreed to multi-lingualism, really understood that there was a permanent change in the whole concept of government in this country.

The Chief Minister: Flatter yourself.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I have a great regard for the agility and versatility of our illustrious Chief Minister. I am quite sure he understands that it is a very significant change, but I think very few have really faced up to the problems which are coming in the year ahead.

We are all now together as one united, happy and cohesive delegation and far be it from me to say anything which may in any way break it up - I see the Hon. the Chief Secretary is just waiting for me to say something that will break up the happy unity, but the P.A.P. will not oblige him. We, Sir, have a definite purpose in mind. Our first objective is not just to remove his physical presence in this Chamber but we shall remove him and his friends and colleagues. It is not that we take any personal objection to their presence, but as symbols of European authority and representatives of British interests, they must go. Not only must the symbols go but the substance must also go. That will be the next big fight if in April we take another step forward towards immediate and ultimate independence - immediate, for the P.A.P. according to the manifesto, ultimate, say the Liberal-Socialists.

I hope the Liberal-Socialists support this motion as indeed they will have to, even though they have seen fit to allow a minority Opposition Party to second the motion. I hope they will make themselves clear on this point that this is the minimum that we seek in London; that this is the common ground of all political Parties, and from this, there is no withdrawal. When we shout "Merdeka", what we really mean is one more step to Merdeka and what we really want in the end is Merdeka.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: We have now reached the moment of interruption. Mr Chief Minister, debate to be resumed, what day?

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir. If it please you, Sir, I will move the adjournment.

Mr Speaker: No, there are other items to be dealt with.

Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.