CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE IN LONDON

Order read for resuming adjourned consideration of Amendment to Question [6th June, 1956],

"That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London." - (The Chief Minister).

Which Amendment was, to leave out all the words from "Assembly", and to insert:

"is of the opinion that the offer of Her Majesty's Government should have been accepted by the delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London as an interim measure, in view of the considerable constitutional advancement contained therein and in view of the urgent need to restore a feeling of confidence and stability to the country and to the people." - (Mr Lim Choon Mong).

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I recounted the main points on which the delegation agreed before we went to London and I was coming to the time when the delegation agreed to give the responsibility of external defence and foreign affairs, except for trade and commerce, to the United Kingdom.

The Chief Minister: Powers.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, arising out of that question, the delegation from Singapore suggested that there should be a Defence and Security Council which should consist of seven members. They would be one representative of the United Kingdom, three representatives of the Armed Forces, the Chief Minister of Singapore, and two other representatives of the Government of Singapore. However, for purposes of bargaining, the numbers were made equal, that is, three from the Government of Singapore and three from the United Kingdom.

In addition to the above, the delegation agreed to allow the United Kingdom to have the power of suspending the constitution should internal security deteriorate to such an extent as to affect the efficacy of external defence or should the Government of Singapore act ultra vires the constitution of Singapore.

Let us now compare this with what was agreed between the United Kingdom Government and Singapore before the talks broke down. We have read in the papers that the United Kingdom agreed to allow Singapore to double its elected Members - from the present 25 to 50. They further agreed to withdraw from the Legislative Assembly all Nominated Members as well as Official Ministers. On the question of citizenship, the United Kingdom considered the request from Singapore most sympathetically and offered the creation of the State of Singapore with citizens who would enjoy rights similar to that of fully self-governing members of the Commonwealth. Malayanisation of the civil service, in accordance with the Majority Report, was accepted in principle and details concerning this were left in the hands of sub-committees which never met.

The points which were not fully agreed upon were the composition of the Defence and Security Council and the powers of legislation by Her Majesty's Government regarding external defence. Here you will see that the bargaining point which the delegation had in mind was turned into a firm stand. A suggestion by the Chief Minister that the Chairman of this Council should be appointed by the United Nations Organisation was not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. Another suggestion made by the PAP that the Chairman should be appointed by the Government of India was not adopted by the delegation. A further suggestion was made by the Labour Front that the Chairman should be appointed by the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Having regard to the fact that the two previous suggestions did not meet with success on the ground that the intervention of a third party in a problem involving joint control by the two governments could not be pushed through, we took the view that this third suggestion would only be turned down and thereby cause further deadlock in the talks. We therefore suggested that, as the problem was one facing Singapore and Britain, it would be easier to find a solution acceptable to both parties if they could, by agreement, nominate a person acceptable to both. We were proved right when the talks broke down on this point. In passing, I must mention the fact that although our suggestion was turned down, we stood by the whole delegation as a solid front when the question was discussed with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We did not prejudice the case put up by the Chief Minister even though we had expressed our feelings at delegation meetings that the chances of reaching agreement with the United Kingdom on this point would be slim. Our attitude has been twisted by the P.A.P. into an anti-Federation stand and later into an anti-Malay stand. This malicious fabrication on the part of the P.A.P. has been done without regard to the evil consequences which can ensue from communal ill-feelings. The public should know how the P.A.P., in order to obtain political gain, was prepared to sacrifice the harmony of the people and the interests of the country. Sowing seeds of communal ill-feelings is a tactic of the Communists, and I call upon the people to open their eyes and be warned against these poison mongers.

Now that the talks have failed, we can realise the setback on the constitutional progress of Singapore. It will not be possible for us to have the great constitutional advance which would have been ours by next year. The Rendel Constitution, which was fiercely criticised, is still in force. The Chief Minister put it in London after the talks failed that only lepers would want to stand for election. I wonder what he will think of the present Members sitting in this House. The offer that was made by the United Kingdom was described as a Christmas pudding with arsenic sauce. If that were the case, then the present constitution would be an arsenic cake. It is therefore very interesting to find that the Labour Front has decided to eat this arsenic cake, although a few days ago a Christmas pudding with arsenic sauce was totally unacceptable!

Looking at it from all angles, I feel that the breakdown of the talks was not at all done with a sense of realism. In fact, if we compare what we set out to get with what was actually agreed between the delegation and the United Kingdom, we will find that we obtained practically all that we had asked for. In fact, even the P.A.P. leader, who stated publicly that he had gone to London to fight for only 75 per cent Merdeka, was ready to accept it. On the question whether Britain should have the power to suspend the constitution partially as well as totally, he even tried to persuade the Chief Minister that if he was willing to give the power of total suspension to Britain, then logically and legally Britain could use part of the powers given her. However, we were told of a mysterious cable, and then the stand of the P.A.P. became that of a full loaf or none at all. This change of attitude on the part of the P.A.P. leader closed all avenues of retreat to the Chief Minister from the stand taken by him. This, in fact, was the true cause of the failure. Viewing the events in retrospect, I firmly believe that the Chief Minister would have agreed to the proposals by the United Kingdom if only he had thought things over before acting. The frantic bid by the Chief Minister to reopen the talks on his own personal responsibility was ample evidence of this. Singapore spent a large sum of money - in fact, $ 180,000 - on this abortive trip. Stooges of international Communism will, I am sure, welcome the failure so that they can still put up the appearance of fighting colonialism. We, the Liberal-Socialists, are of the opinion that we should have accepted the United Kingdom proposals and then continue negotiating to further limit the powers of Her Majesty's Government on the question of legislation with regard to external defence. It would have been easier for us to come back with 90 per cent Merdeka, work it, and after some time, go back and ask for just one or two more concessions to attain the 100 per cent independence. By that time, we would have raised our own forces for our own defence and the problem of external defence would then be more easily solved.

I consider the policy of the P.A.P., as the Hon. Mr Francis Thomas once said, that of a young man in a great hurry. He wants to drive a car at 100 miles per hour through the streets of Tanjong Pagar regardless of the number of people he may have killed. No doubt such a speed will be most spectacular and will hit the headlines - but who will be the sufferers?

As far as the Liberal-Socialists are concerned, we adhere to our stand. We view the problem in a practical manner. What we promised we have carried out. We declared that we would fight for a common citizenship for Singapore. We did it. We stated publicly that we wanted to safeguard the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the Press. We wanted to be sure that when Merdeka comes, the safety of the people individually, whether they are young or old, whether they are of one race or another, should be safeguarded. We voiced that for the people of Singapore. All Parties declared at the conference that they were aware of the danger of internal subversion; yet some were prepared, and, in fact, preferred to gamble on it. We fully realise, however, that Singapore is a commercial centre whose prosperity depends upon trade, which can only flourish under stable conditions and feelings of security. Whereas the other Parties voted for the breakdown of the talks, the Liberal-Socialists and the M.C.A. did not favour it -

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Abstained!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: We were right.

Mr Braga: Abstained!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: The talks should never have been broken off. The subsequent correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State embodied in the White Paper, which is the subject of the next motion, seeking to reopen the talks, proved our point. In fact, these letters written by the Chief Minister provide all the justification that is needed for my amendment to the motion.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising to second the amendment, I speak as one who was, of course, not a member of the delegation but was able to follow events perhaps from a more objective angle, or at least from a Singapore angle. First of all, it is as well to recall some of the things which were said and done immediately prior to the opening of the London talks. For example, may I remind the House what the Hon. the Chief Secretary reported to hon. Members in connection with the Kallang mass rally, as memories are sometimes short:

"At about 6.40 p.m. the chanting became more excited and a number of youths were seen working up their companions, lobbing pieces of wood, poles and banners at the police who remained steady at their posts.

The police had been apprehensive of disorder because of slighting references made to the police at several P.A.P. meetings and because of the campaign in the Press by a large group of so-called Chinese cultural associations and students during the previous two weeks protesting against police refusals to issue licences for the performance of songs and dances of Communist meaning. These organisations held a further protest meeting at the Badminton Hall immediately prior to the mass rally. After it, at about 4 p.m., some 4,000 to 5,000 youths from that meeting marched in an orderly and disciplined manner to the rally. They carried a large banner depicting the Communist dove of peace. When they encountered police officers on duty, there was organised shouting of Merdeka. Their attitude was one of contempt for the police..."

Nine days later the Hon. the Chief Minister, in a broadcast before leaving for London, said:

"Britain wants Singapore as a prosperous free port serving the commerce of the world. This is the destiny we seek. Britain wants to keep Singapore free from the deadly clutches of Communism. We know that Communism in this mercantile island means death."

Four days later, on, I think, the 16th of April, my hon. Friend's first act in London was to address "the blunt truth", as he called it, to Malayan students in a supposedly hush-hush talk. He stated, or so it is reported, that 1959 was the date for the take-over in Singapore by a camouflaged Communist party, and he had warned the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that the latter was inviting Communists into the P.A.P. On the following day he admitted in a Press release:

"The main theme of my address was the dangerous attitude of a group in Singapore that is not big enough to overcome their bitterness against colonial rule and talks of throwing the White man out of the colony."

On the 22nd of April, on the very eve of the talks, the Member for Tanjong Pagar took his turn in addressing the students, stating:

"Our first task is to get rid of the white man." He was quoted as explaining that "the chance of one of his English-educated audience becoming the future prime minister of Malaya was 'extremely slender'."

The majority of the Members of this House were away in London, but I can tell them now that the effect which these statements by the P.A.P. leader and by the Chief Minister had on the people of this island, already deeply shaken by the Kallang rally fiasco, was one of considerable concern, coupled with the growing conviction that the maintenance of full and firm internal security transcended almost all other considerations. Could there, therefore, be the least surprise, either in London or in Singapore, that the Secretary of State should state that Her Majesty's Government would undertake to see that this country did not become an outpost of Communism and was not this the logical reply to the Chief Minister's own fears? If this were not so, why should the citizens of this country not have risen up in their wrath on the breakdown of the talks? What has happened to the Hon. the Chief Minister's 167,000 signatories, who are supposed to have wanted his brand of all-or-nothing Merdeka and who, by their silence, have revealed that they do not desire anything of the sort?

The Chief Minister: You are wrong.

Mr John Ede: Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar complained yesterday that British opinion had hardened on the arrival of the delegation in London. The extremism of his own Party no doubt contributed to this hardening just as it had contributed to a similar hardening of opinion in Singapore, namely, towards the view that the internal security of this country must be properly safeguarded. Should it not, therefore, have become clearer, as the days went by, that if Her Majesty's Government's offer on all other major issues was acceptable, we should accept the whole, and was not that, in fact, the view of the hon. Member himself for at least the first half of the talks? The Hon. the Chief Minister complained yesterday that the final differences in viewpoint between the Colonial Office and the delegation were so small that the former should have given in to his demands, but is it not equally arguable that he should have made concessions when so much had already been gained? Is it not nearer the truth that the Chief Minister over-reached himself in the terms he tried to wrest from Her Majesty's Government, and is this not borne out by his subsequent actions after the breakdown of the talks? The truth is that almost everybody knows, including, I sometimes think, the Hon. the Chief Minister himself, that the British offer in its final form should have been accepted as an interim measure.

The Nanyang Siang Pau of the 15th of May, I think it was, pointed out that "members of the delegation should have room for mutual toleration and concession and never allow a deadlock, as success could not be achieved all at once; and further, that if the delegates returned with powers of internal self-government, other difficult problems could be reserved for decision later and there was no need to force the issue now." That was the true feeling of Singapore. Those were the views of the village leaders, both Chinese and Malay, in the rural areas of my constituency whom I visited when the breakdown occurred. Indeed, many to whom I spoke went even further. They said that if the Member for Tanjong Pagar really wished to throw out the white man, there would be no Service establishments and no big commercial houses, and consequently no jobs for the considerable number of workers employed by these establishments.

On the 15th of April, a week before this expression of extremism, the view of the hon. Member had been more moderate when he said on the eve of his departure for London that the object of the Merdeka Mission was not to secure full independence but 75 per cent self-government with complete self-government after five years. On the 15th of May, a month later, the P.A.P. was to reject the very large measure of self-government offered and to threaten to bring Singapore to an economic and political standstill, thus showing cynicism and an utter lack of principle.

With a fully-elected Legislative Assembly; with our own Home Minister and Finance Minister having full control of the police and the revenues of the country; with the details of Malayanisation settled and their implementation well on the way; with a Singapore citizenship established and an electoral roll fully representative of the people; can it not be seen that the complete self-government after five years which the P.A.P. claimed they wanted would, in fact, have been inevitable and very much more of a reality in even less time? Indeed, the Secretary of State promised a review of the working of the Defence and Security Council after two years.

In our view, the greatest disservice which the Hon. the Chief Minister, as leader of the delegation, has done to this country is not merely to have rejected this considerable constitutional advance but also to have kept the one and a quarter million citizens of this island in continued doubt and anxiety as to the next turn of events. For far too long have all sections of the community been saying to themselves and to each other, "What is going to happen?" The feeling of uncertainty, of insecurity and of malaise has haunted Singapore for far longer than we can possibly afford. This country is not merely standing still, it is sliding backwards. The Chief Minister's policy, most unfortunately, has seen to it that this position of uncertainty is to continue for some months to come.

The Hon. the Chief Minister told the Malayan students in London:

"Singapore's economy is so delicately balanced that we survive only by virtue of the activities of capital."

His all-or-nothing policy has considerably shaken that balance. His action in accusing the Colonial Secretary of Fascism one day and writing to him the next and pleading for the reopening of the talks in those words - "permit me to express my admiration for your very real abilities" - was hardly a balanced action.

Let us not only be honest, Sir, with ourselves in this House but with the people of this country as well, and let us match our own common sense with the sturdy common sense of the majority of Singapore's citizens. And what our joint common sense tells us is this: that 90 per cent internal self-government plus 100 per cent security with which to maintain it is a better proposition today than 100 per cent internal self-government plus only 50 per cent security with which to maintain it. If the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) cares to call me a colonial stooge for stating that proposition, then all I can say is that the bulk of Singapore's population are stooges along with me, if they were given the chance, free from the fear of the sinister propaganda and intimidation which the P.A.P. indulges in, to express their true feelings and convictions.

The Hon. the Chief Minister knows very well that the Liberal-Socialist delegates urged him up to the last moment to accept what had been offered and then to go back later for more. He cannot, in any honesty, blame them for his own lack of vision, nor indeed has he done so. The people of Singapore are sick and tired of crises and this amendment reflects their real feelings regarding the totally unnecessary failure of a mission. That is the truth of the matter, and the tragedy.

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

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Hon. the Chief Minister for allowing me to speak first on this amendment. For personal reasons, I will not be able to stay in this House beyond 11 o'clock and I was afraid I would have to leave this Assembly without having answered some of the charges made against me by the leader of the majority Opposition Party, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), and the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede).

Sir, the People's Action Party, when we left Singapore, issued an official statement - 75 per cent Merdeka. Unlike the Liberal-Socialist Party, when we issue an official statement, we mean what we say. We prepared the ground for an agreement with the Colonial Office on the basis of complete internal self-government in order that we could never be accused either by our supporters or by our enemies of cheating. We fought strenuously in London to achieve this. Whatever differences I had with the Chief Minister were because I tried to keep the basis of discussion on the heads of agreement we had agreed upon before we left Singapore. Our interpretation of the agreement we had arrived at before we left Singapore was complete internal self-government. We wanted self-government. We gave away external affairs and external defence, and we were left with internal self-government.

The Member for Serangoon said he urged upon the Chief Minister the illogicality of the stand of the delegation and of the P.A.P. in refusing to offer partial suspension of the constitution when we had, in fact, offered the whole. That, Sir, is a completely malicious misrepresentation of the facts. He knew exactly what our stand was. We went to London on this basis. We did not give away anything. We wanted to ask only for complete internal self-government because we could not have got more, because other members of the delegation, the Liberal-Socialists, would not have agreed. Having asked for internal self-government, it was idle to discuss whether or not Her Majesty's Government had the right to suspend the constitution. There is only one sovereign power in any territory, and as long as we are not independent, that sovereign power is Britain. When we are independent like Ceylon, then the old imperial power is out. When the Ceylonese decided to oust the British bases, there was no question of suspending the constitution because to re-enter Ceylon was an act of aggression. But until we have attained independence, Britain is the sovereign power and we have to accept that position. I agree that if Britain has the power to suspend the whole of the constitution, then, a fortiori, she has the power to suspend part of it. But that is entirely different from saying that I agree to the British having the power to suspend any part of the constitution. There is a fundamental difference in political approach.

Sir, for three weeks in London I argued and I argued for a settlement. No one in this House knows better how absolutely vital it was for us to have a settlement if it was possible, but I found in the last week that it was not possible. I found that Britain had decided that she was not going to give us complete internal self-government, that Britain was going to sit in with the learner-driver. Britain wanted an Austin car with dual controls. Britain wanted to be next to the driver. What we said to Britain was, "If you want me to agree to have you sitting in with me, I want one set of controls. The day you take over, I will ostentatiously get out from the driving seat and you can be in supreme control. But I refuse to be your stooge, to be your pawn, like the Liberal-Socialists would have been."

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Not at all.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Braga: Of course.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, of all the stupid things that people do, I think this is the stupidest of them all. They did not have the courage in London to say, "I oppose this breakdown. I propose to go on with the talks." Instead they abstained. Abstained from what? Abstained because they neither had the will nor the guts to make up their minds what to do -

The Chief Minister: Except the Member -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - except the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng). [Interruption.] And now, three weeks after the breakdown, the Member for Serangoon said that we should have accepted the Colonial Office's offer. Sir, I can understand the Hon. Mr Sutherland and I can understand the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). They cannot help themselves. We are all prisoners of our own past, of our upbringing; our mental attitudes are values that we learned as little children. But I find it sad to see the Member for Serangoon - and I think, of the Liberal-Socialists, he is the man who most believes in what he is saying - come forward in this Assembly to be an advocate for the Colonial Office. There is the perfect stooge -

Mr Speaker: Order, order. We have really been approaching unparliamentary language, but if the word "stooge" is used in direct reference to an hon. Member, then, of course, it is out of order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, forgive me for the slip, but I could not restrain my natural reaction at seeing one of my own people behaving in a manner completely unbefitting a self-respecting individual. Nehru said that when a colonial power succeeds in making a man think he is a slave, and he thinks like a slave, then the threat of power is no longer necessary, and the supreme achievement of an imperial power in subjugation is achieved.

I can understand the Hon. Mr Sutherland and the Member for Tanglin, but I find it difficult to understand the Member for Serangoon. In fact, a lot of Malayan students found it very difficult to understand him. He went to one meeting and said, "We are Liberal-Socialists. Because we believe that the world should be a little bit freer, therefore we are Liberals. Because we believe that employers should give a little bit more to their workers, therefore we are Socialists. Therefore we call ourselves the Liberal-Socialists."

Sir, they appeared before the Malayan students in London one Sunday and they never appeared again, although they were invited, because they accused the students of hooliganism. The students there are all idealistic; they asked the Liberal-Socialist leader whether he was prepared to fight and die for freedom, whether be was prepared to go to jail if necessary. He replied, "Do not be silly. All these things are unnecessary. Why should we go to jail for these things? The British are bound to give us these things and all that we have got to do is to wait for the hand-over."

Sir, I do not know what to make of these people. They say that this is their Party statement. Therefore I assume that it has received careful deliberation as a statement of policy. It says the P.A.P. is afraid of Merdeka and the P.A.P. have done their very best to achieve their aim of not getting Merdeka by frightening the British. Sir, there is a touch of hallucination about this whole thing which sometimes troubles me in my sleep. I propose now to read from the "Suara Merdeka", the organ of the Malayan students in Britain. I think they must have been troubled in their sleep too. They quote Torch, organ of the Liberal-Socialist Party, which contained the following account of an inaugural meeting for the formation of a Youth Group at a seaside bungalow at Siglap:

"It was a fine gathering, healthy young people having a pleasant and enjoyable day.

Sport, games and dancing preceded and followed the meeting to elect office-bearers. Unlike the regimented gatherings of the young section of other political Parties, the members spent their time more on play than on business. The organisers of the gathering are to be congratulated for taking an easy attitude towards politics."

That is from their Party organ. I quote the comment of the Malayan students in Great Britain: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." Mr Speaker, Sir, any man who subscribes to this amendment of the Liberal-Socialists must be going mad.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon and leader of the Liberal-Socialists in this House, whom I respect as a man who always does seek to be honest and yet is torn between his own personal integrity and his loyalty to his Party caucus, has drawn attention to some of the ingredients of the constitution which the British offered. He and the Member for Tiong Bahru have made some play on the question of citizenship. I think they are conscious of how we of the Labour Front have struggled, with sincerity, with ardour and with tirelessness to get it. I do not think we need say it - it must be plain - that the question of citizenship to us is one of vital importance to Singapore, and I need hardly say that we have the people's sympathy with our domiciled Chinese particularly who are deprived of the right of citizenship. But, Sir, I am one who respects these Chinese and I am certain that they would not ask that the welfare of Singapore should be sacrificed in order that they should have citizenship. I am sure that they themselves would not want, not a 90 per cent Merdeka, but a "busok" Merdeka in order that they should be citizens of the country.

Sir, there are good ingredients in what the British offered. May I refer to paragraph 67 of our White Paper in which we openly said so. With some sarcasm, Sir, my description of the constitution has been referred to - the description that it is a Christmas cake with arsenic sauce. A Christmas cake has fine ingredients, just as there were good ingredients in what we were offered, but the whole was a poisonous package.

Paragraph 67 of the White Paper says:

"On the resumption of the meeting the Chief Minister indicated with deep regret that the otherwise acceptable Constitutional framework proposed by Her Majesty's Government was rendered unacceptable due to the insistence of the over-riding Imperial Legislative Powers and a majority vote on the Defence and Security Council."

So it is drawing a red herring, Sir, to refer to some of the ingredients in this offer which were good. The question really is: Were they not completely nullified when it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain complete imperial powers over Singapore which would remain a colony? The Member for Serangoon said we got almost everything we had asked for. May I remind him that we asked for Dominion status? We asked for complete political freedom. At no time did we agree, either here or anywhere else, that Singapore should remain a colony, subject to these day-to-day over-riding imperial powers.

The remarkable thing about this amendment of the Member for Serangoon, Sir, the unhappy thing - I cannot speak with anger; I speak in real sorrow - is that I see a man of integrity act in this fashion, but I would ask this gentleman, who today moves an amendment requesting this House to approve the acceptance of the British proposals, how he acted in London. Does he remember, I think it was about 3.30 p.m. on 15th May at the adjournment just before the final break, I said, "Is there anybody present in favour of the British proposals?" Not one hand was raised. "Those against?" Nine hands were raised. And I said, "You, you, and you?" "Abstain", came the answers. I do not know what "abstain" means. To me it is an act of cowardice for a representative of the people in any matter that is before the House or with which he is entrusted. There are circumstances, Sir, where one must abstain - I mean in special circumstances - for example, in the next motion, if there is to be an amendment to censure me, quite naturally I must abstain from voting because it affects my personal interests; but to abstain on a matter of such vital importance to the welfare of the country - ! In any case, Sir, they abstained - three of them. They had the right to - these gentlemen who abstained and who today ask you to believe that they acted wrongly in abstaining, that they should have accepted it. How did these gentlemen react when two days later I sought to reopen the talks on a far more advantageous basis for Singapore? Did they support me?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I will tell you later.

The Chief Minister: But the point is that I was informed by the Member for Serangoon, "Sorry. We are not interested in reopening the negotiations. My Party in Singapore is finalising arrangements to take over the government."

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Nonsense!

The Chief Minister: To me personally, at the B.B.C. So, Sir, these people who were not prepared to accept the British proposals on the 15th of May, these Members who were not prepared to support my efforts to reopen the negotiations on the night of the 16th and the morning of the 17th of May - as the hon. Member said, we shall be coming to that in the next motion - these very people said we should have accepted it. Why the change? I can only say this, Sir. This is an effort to understand - that the Liberal-Socialists sent their more honest representatives to London; but now that these representatives consider themselves subject to the party caucus and have to take party directions, they find themselves in the humiliating and unhappy position of moving an amendment that censures their own conduct. If the day ever comes when this Assembly is ruled by party caucus, decisions outside this Assembly, then democracy walks right out of the door, Sir. When a man of personal integrity has to give way to party directions, democracy ceases to be a reality.

I think that for myself I can only deeply regret that hon. Members of this House and men whom I had the pleasure of working with in London - because, let me repeat, that from the Liberal-Socialists in London I received patient support, even though at times they were at variance with my views; I learned to admire them, members who were with me in the delegation - and it is with genuine sorrow that I see them stand up in discussion to destroy that integrity before the public and to destroy, to, some extent, the dignity of Members of this House by moving an amendment that censures their own conduct in London.

Mr A. J. Braga: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister, so audaciously brought by the Member for Serangoon - the so-called leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party delegation in London. I would like to remind him and his colleague the Member for Tanglin, who seconded the amendment, that it was their Party alone who in this House, when the question of self-government was first discussed, were the ones who asked for immediate independence.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: The lion roars!.

Mr Braga: The lion has roared and is still trying to roar. I will read now from our Hansard of what happened on that occasion (Official Report, Vol. 1, No. 8, dated 25th July, 1955). This is what the Member for Paya Lebar said:

"Let us therefore play the game, (if they can) and ask for a full transfer of power so that we, and we alone, shall be responsible for our own affairs and destiny and the British Government need no longer be answerable for us.

In accordance with the principles which I have stated, I therefore move an amendment which will not only be in line with the first and second parts of this motion, but also remove all future occasions for dissatisfaction. I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding the following . . .

'And that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for a transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore, and that a new constitution providing for independence should be granted immediately.'"

I hope the Member for Serangoon and his colleague the Member for Tanglin appreciate the significance of that. We are, of course, quite accustomed, both in this House and outside it, to witness the farcical gymnastic somersaults which the now defunct Progressive Party (absorbed by the Lion Party) and the newly-born Liberal-Socialist Party have made and continue to make. It is, of course, understandable for the Member for Tanglin to second this amendment. I can also understand what he represents in more ways than one.

Before the delegation left for London, the Member for Tanglin, on behalf of the Liberal-Socialists, changed the whole original attitude of his Party, which had asked for immediate independence, by seeking certain reservations for Her Majesty's Government and safeguards on the internal security problem, but the All-Party Delegation started from Singapore unanimous in the call for Merdeka. In London, before the conference was opened, it was agreed by all delegates that, if any differences of opinion arose in the course of discussions, a 15-minute adjournment be asked for, so that we could iron out any differences amongst ourselves in the committee rooms that were supplied to us, so as not to disclose any discord. Furthermore, the Liberal-Socialist Party agreed that on the question of internal security they would voice their opinion only when the question arose. But in spite of this, at the opening speeches of the conference, the leader of the Liberal-Socialists made a most puerile statement, which he no doubt had already prepared in Singapore, proclaiming his Party's platform on the question of internal security. The Hon. the Chief Minister kindly referred to the speech as ill-timed or ill-chosen, but my own view is that not only was it ill-timed and ill-chosen, but it immediately signified to Her Majesty's Government, before any matters could be discussed, that there was discord amongst the members of the delegation, and without wishing to breach any confidence, my view was upheld by a member of the Liberal-Socialist Party - and that was not the Member for Changi. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar is right in his opinion that the people of Britain and Her Majesty's Government had before our arrival hardened against the request for Merdeka, did this opening speech of the leader of the Liberal-Socialists, which clearly intimated to Her Majesty's Government that his Party was ready to accept any crumbs that fell from the Colonial Office table, not lend further fortification to the British attitude?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Quote what I said.

Mr Braga: The Liberal-Socialists, I suppose by this opening speech, hoped to gain favour with Her Majesty's Government and to be looked upon as the blue-eyed baby. The Colonial Secretary, who is a most astute man (as we all know), subsequently invited members of all Parties separately and individually either to lunch or some other entertainment, where, no doubt, he was able to assess the different views of the Parties. It was a common sight to see at social functions, to which all delegates were invited, members of the Liberal-Socialist Party buttonholing the bigwigs of the Colonial Office, or any of the members who sat on the opposite side of the table at the conference -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Ask the Chief Minister.

Mr Braga: - and on occasions I overheard their conversations which were always entirely related to "What our Party platform is and what we can do for Singapore." It is therefore understandable that the Member for Changi became so disgusted with party politics - and I have no doubt he meant his own party politics - that he has now openly declared to be independent. The vicious remarks made by the Member for Tiong Bahru attacking the Hon. the Chief Minister were unjustified and unkind. In fairness to the P.A.P., so were his attacks against them. I can only advise this hon. Member to remove the mote from his eye and the mote from his colleagues before making any uncharitable attacks. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Braga: I had originally no intention to speak. The White Paper was prepared by this Government and has the unanimous approval of all Ministers. But the uncalled-for criticisms made by the Member for Tiong Bahru, when no one else before him had attacked anyone at all - in point of fact, the Chief Minister's remarks of the Liberal-Socialists were most kind - and this audacious attempt to negative the Hon. the Chief Minister's motion makes it incumbent upon me to speak. I therefore oppose this amendment which strikes me as another political stunt of the Liberal-Socialists to find favour with some people in Singapore and the Colonial Office, and I think no decent-minded member of the All-Party Delegation could support it.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, like the meetings of that institution in Bukit Timah Road, commonly known as the race course, the sittings of this Assembly are not void of their moments of upset. Also like the "dark horses" of whose performance one is never sure until it is all over, so it is with certain Members of this House - only here they are called by more dignified names.

Sir, my friend and colleague the Minister for Health has just now quoted from Hansard - he has stolen a march on me - showing that it was these so-called champions of the people who were shocked at the idea of having self-government in four years and who wanted immediate independence. It was the leader of these champions, Sir, who today stood up and advocated that we should have accepted - accepted what? - accepted complete independence? No, Sir. Accepted even clean internal self-government? No, Sir. He advocated that we should have accepted something that no hon. Member could have accepted.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): - to hell.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Will the hon. Member please repeat what he has just said?

Mr William Tan: " - to hell."

Mr Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Member say, "Go to hell"?

Mr William Tan: I said "Road to hell".

Mr Speaker: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. [Interruption.] Order, order. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon, leader of the Socialists, who are also Liberals at the same time, is censuring us today for not having accepted an unworkable compromise; for having principles and sticking by them; and for not fooling the people of Singapore with something that is but a shadow and has no substance. Yesterday he told us that it did not matter if we did not have the trimmings so long as we had the substance, that "it does not matter if we do not have the tomatoes, the lettuce and the salad so long as we have the chicken." Sir, there are times when the chicken without the trimmings is unpalatable, and there are times when such a substance - if he thinks it is a substance - would make the body politic sick. It is better not to have it without the trimmings.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, like Ministers' posts.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: But, Sir, I still say that he was mistaken. It is not the substance that we were getting but rather the trimmings. The hon. Member with his tongue in his cheek talks of stability. "Restore the feeling of confidence and stability," he says. Does he not realise that that is exactly what we wanted; that is exactly why we refused to accept -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Ha, ha!

Mr Speaker: Order, please. I think hon. Members on the Opposition side are entitled to reasonable interruptions. I have allowed interruptions on both sides of the House, but when they become unseemly, I must intervene. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, if we had accepted the Colonial Office's proposals, it would have led to greater instability. Agitators would have been able to use the excuse of, "the sword that is always hanging over our heads" to arouse passions, to commit murder and arson and to arouse racial antagonism. That is what we wanted to prevent and that is why we refused to accept a dishonourable compromise. Would we have got this stability? I say we would not, unless we had a proper constitution where our principles would not have been sacrificed, and where the people of Singapore could have understood that they had got "something clean" - in the words of the Chief Minister. It is like a healthy person having a thorn in his foot. That thorn acts as an irritant and the mere presence of that source of irritation is enough to put him in an unstable frame of mind. It is better to be sick, as we are today under colonial rule, and fight on for independence rather than have a thorn in the flesh and feel irritable all the time.

Sir, yesterday we heard a series of speakers on the post-mortem of the Merdeka talks and the reasons why they failed. "The British were in no mood to give away further concessions to the colony; there was dissension among the delegates themselves; the Colonial Office was adamant." I ask, Sir, why was the Colonial Office adamant? Because they knew that there was one weak link in the chain of the delegation, They knew that that one weak link was ready to come to any compromise, whether honourable or not. They knew that that one weak link did not have the same desire for independence as the others had.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Refer to the Chief Minister's remarks.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Knowing all this, Sir, do you not think that it is likely that a people, well seasoned in politics like the British are, would not have taken advantage at once of that weakness of ours? Sir, that is one more major reason why the delegation failed to obtain success.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin stated that he was able to follow from here events with a more objective angle, rather a Singapore angle. It is likely that he followed the events as presented to the public by the British Press, which everybody knows is not unbiased - to be very mild about it. Sir, he also asked what had happened to those 167,000 Merdeka signatures of the Chief Minister - mind you, of the Chief Minister; they had no share in it. Why were they silent when we did not get Merdeka? Sir, that is the trouble. These gentlemen on the opposite benches - the Liberal-Socialists - are not in touch with the masses. They do not realise the amount of effort that has gone into keeping the lid on, to prevent it from blowing up. They do not know what has been going on behind the scenes, because they are not in touch with the masses. If they had known, if they had been in contact with the masses, they would have realised that it is very dangerous to touch on this subject. If this is taken as a challenge, what is going to happen tomorrow? Then they will be held to blame.

Sir, in closing, I would like to say that yesterday the Member for Tanjong Pagar, in one of his most balanced speeches - so it appeared to me - pointed out that the right path now lay towards a united, non-Communist national movement. That, Sir, is the reaction of many right-minded people today after the failure of the talks; and the failure of the talks is already acting as an incentive towards such a movement, driving to the side party squabbles and party politics, except perhaps for a few un-national-minded people. With such a strong and united national movement, Merdeka cannot be refused and I hope, Sir, that the day will not be far off when, in the words of the Member for Changi, we will be able to sink all party differences and unite in a national movement for independence - and I do not expect certain Members in this House will take part in it.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Liberal-Socialist Party has a certain political immaturity. To put it rather more simply, they are sometimes rather silly. You can rely on them always not only to do the wrong thing, but if it is possible, to do it in the wrong way and at the wrong time.

I spent some time last night thinking over this amendment which they have moved and trying to see what public advantage or what party advantage they could hope to reap from it. I find it quite in vain to attempt to understand either their motives or their objectives. The only conclusion that I can come to for the moving of this amendment is that their traditional political un-wisdom has once again dominated their political common sense. This amendment is politically unwise for Singapore. It is even politically unwise for the Liberal-Socialist Party, and I am afraid they must have noted with considerable dismay this morning that the Straits Times devoted a very lengthy leading article to saying how politically unwise they had been in moving it. I really feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it would be a great pity if we spent very much longer in debating this amendment. I have been looking at my Standing Orders. I do not think that we, at least, wish to abuse the rules of the Assembly or infringe the rights of the minority, but from a purely humanitarian motive of pity for the Liberal-Socialists, I suggest that we might consider moving that the question be now put and we get this amendment out of the way. If they like, they may move it themselves.

Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment proposed by the Liberal-Socialist Party does not take me by surprise. In a statement last week I said that the Liberal-Socialists were collaborators of colonialism. Some friends then told me that I was being unfair to the Liberal-Socialists. The amendment proposed by the Liberal-Socialists proves that I was not mistaken.

The refusal of the British Government to agree to the minimum demands of the people of Singapore caused the breakdown of the talks. At this time it is more than ever necessary that all Parties in Singapore should close their ranks and unitedly press for the minimum workers' demands of the people of Singapore. This unity of all anti-colonial forces is the only way in which the political aspirations of the people can be advanced. But it is just at this time that the Liberal-Socialist Party choose to echo the line of the Hon. Mr Sutherland -

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Point of order, Sir. The word "lie" - is that parliamentary, Sir?

Mr Lim Ching Siong: Line, Sir. L-i-n-e.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. What is your point of order, Mr Sutherland?

Mr Sutherland: I understood the hon. Member to say, "echo the lie".

An hon. Member: "Line".

Mr Sutherland: Oh, I beg your pardon.

Mr Lim Ching Siong: He is a member of the Colonial Office!

Mr Sutherland: I accept that!

Mr Lim Ching Siong: - and this line was against the delegation of Singapore because Mr Sutherland refused to allow Mr Lennox-Boyd -

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Member must remember to address his remarks to the Chair. I cannot hear what he is saying.

Mr Lim Ching Siong: Mr Sutherland refused to be party to the censure of what he calls his country's Colonial Office. This can be forgiven. He is, after all, an hon. Member of the opposite camp. But now the Liberal-Socialists also refuse to be party to the censure of the Colonial Office for rejecting the minimum demands of the people of Singapore. They go further. They are prepared to censure the delegation of the people of Singapore. This is something which cannot be forgiven by the people of Singapore. This Party proves once again that a change of name does not mean a change of quality. The old Progressive Party, composed of the "yes" men of colonialism, and the not so old Democrat Party, composed of reactionary local capitalist elements, together thought that they could fool the public if they called themselves by a new name - the Liberal-Socialists. The donkey tried to pretend that it was a horse. But this amendment proves once again and for all time that this Party is neither Liberal nor Socialist. If they are honest with themselves and with the people, they will call themselves by their correct name - the Colonial Collaborators Party. To accept -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Not the Communist Party.

Mr Lim Ching Siong: To accept the British Government's offer would have been a betrayal of the people of Singapore. It would have meant acceptance of the British Government's right to interfere in almost every aspect of public life. It would have meant recognising British policemen as the backseat drivers of Singapore. The Liberal-Socialists have lost confidence in the people of Singapore. The outstanding characteristic of this Party is its fear of the people of Singapore. They can only be happy if there are British policemen to protect them against their own people. We say that if we are fit for independence, we are also fit to be our own policemen. We say this because we have confidence in our own people and are not afraid of them. Only the spineless members of the Liberal-Socialist Party are afraid of their own people and require foreign policemen to protect them. I therefore ask this Assembly to throw out this amendment, just as the people of Singapore will one day throw the Liberal-Socialists out of this Assembly.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the best to speak on the subject would have been the delegates who attended the constitutional conference and I had originally no desire to speak at all, but I now feel that the debate has become rather unhealthy once it gets to personal affairs or party politics. I ask the Members who are sitting in this House what constitution they are working, and why they are still clinging to it? Who were the originators of this constitution? It was the Progressive Party, but I was then not a member of the Party, and credit must be given to those who have been instrumental in your being in this Assembly and getting more elected representatives here. It is therefore very ungrateful of those, even though they may possibly have advanced politically, to speak in such terms.

Although I am speaking on the amendment, I will also deal with the delegation because it was an All-Party Delegation that went to London. Why an All-Party Delegation? Was it an All-Party Government? No. The reason why the Liberal-Socialists consented to go to London was because they wanted to help in the talks for independence. The Labour Front Coalition knew that they did not have an elected majority on their side. If they went to London alone, they would not be received. In the interests of the people, therefore, the Liberal-Socialists consented to go.

Sir, the policy of the Liberal-Socialists is to attain, if possible, immediate independence, and if it is not possible, then step by step. What is wrong with that? I ask you, Sir, which country has been able to obtain independence after a struggle of four or five or even ten years? Name me one country. Here we have the P.A.P. quoting Mr Nehru and India.

The Chief Minister: What about the Federation?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Please stop interrupting!

Mr Speaker: Order, I am in charge here.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I do not want to be disturbed.

Mr Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member is interrupted, his remedy is to appeal to the Chair and not shout across the Chamber in an ungentlemanly manner.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Personally, Sir, I have not disturbed anyone. You might have noticed that, Sir, and I feel that I should be given the same right not to be disturbed.

Sir, India had to carry her fight for independence for 80 to 90 years. Here we have a Member who always quotes Mr Nehru. I think he has studied Mr Nehru and India in theory but not in practical politics at all. India, Ceylon and even Burma have attained independence after a lot of suffering. The people of this country have not suffered, and I hope they will not. Things have changed. The people of India accepted constitutional advancement by interim stages. Not only that, but they consented to divide the country into two parts - India and Pakistan. We also have an example in Palestine.

When the delegation went as an All Parry Delegation to London, we heard of quarrels and dissensions within the delegation. But the Chief Minister said that they presented a united front at the conference table. I am very happy to hear that. But when a certain stage was reached in the negotiations where neither side would give way at all, it was wise - I would say, very wise - on our part, remembering that Singapore is only 226 square miles in area and having a population of just over a million people, to have taken the maximum offer from the Colonial Office and to work for more later. What was wrong with it, I ask you, Sir? We have accepted the Rendel Constitution. Those Members who oppose it are still sitting tight in their places. They do not want to leave. But in other countries, Sir, if any political party or members of any political party do not agree with the constitution, they immediately resign and ask for fresh elections. They will not work that constitution. But here I see those Members who say they do not want the constitution but are still sticking to it. What for? Are they sincere themselves? If they were, they would have resigned, especially after the Merdeka talks.

Sir, my argument is that our movement for independence is only in its infancy. It is a postwar period movement. In 1948 we had only six elected representatives. After that, we had nine. Now we have 25. Had not the London talks broken down, we would have got 50 seats - all elected. Then we could have asked for fresh elections, ascertained the majority opinion on Merdeka, and go back to London and ask for more concessions. I think it would have been sensible of the delegation to accept the maximum offer of the Colonial Office. It would have meant a definite constitutional advancement in our constitutional rights.

P.A.P. - if we trace the history of this Assembly, what have they done? It is supposed to be an extremist Party. Before going to London, they said, "We want to accept 75 per cent Merdeka." Why? If they wanted freedom, then why be satisfied with 75 per cent Merdeka? If the Colonial Office's offer had been accepted, then we would have got citizenship rights. Some people would have got voting rights and would have a hand in electing people to this Assembly.

Sir, a distinction was made out between the colonial power and the British people. I cannot understand the distinction at all. It is the British people who elect their representatives to Parliament. The Government is formed by the majority party. Then the Cabinet, or the various departments, run the government. What is the opinion of the Colonial Office is the opinion of the British Cabinet, and is the opinion of the British people. It is quite inseparable. Do not forget that the British people elect their representatives to Parliament and Parliament is their voice. There is no distinction at all. It is no use saying that once we have elected them, we do not believe in them. It is impossible. Sir, as I have said, no country had immediate independence and I feel that the maximum offer of the Colonial Office should have been accepted and we would then have been better off, in the interests of the people.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, today I rise to speak as an independent nationalist. I am speaking on the amendment which is associated with the Party to which I once belonged.

Sir, I think the House knows that I was the Member who, during the last day of the London talks, moved a 15-minute adjournment to allow the delegation to have a private discussion. During that adjournment I proposed that we should accept the British offer under protest. I pointed out to the delegates at this meeting that we must admit that there was already a significant advancement in our constitution if the British offer was accepted, especially as the Colonial Office had recognised the principle of Malayanisation and agreed to hand over control of the police force to us. I said the delegation should realise the fact that the British offer would not completely satisfy the actual wants of the people of Singapore and that we must go back and tell the people the truth - that we could not get what we wanted and what we bad promised during our Merdeka Week. At the same time, we would ask all Parties to sign a joint undertaking that no political Party in power would allow Her Majesty's Government over-riding powers to intervene in any minor issue, since it was declared by the Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd, that the British Government were concerned only with external affairs and external defence. We knew very well that the Colonial Office were trying all the time to take over control of internal security in the name of external defence and external affairs. I said I hoped that all Parties would agree to sign a joint undertaking and let the Colonial Office know that they had unanimously agreed that the British Government should not intervene in any minor issue of internal administration. I even went to the extent of urging the delegation to cable back to Singapore to cancel the arrangements which I understood were under way to welcome the Merdeka Mission back from London; that we should protest to the British Colonial Office for dishonouring their promise made last December to the Hon. the Chief Minister that they would allow us to enjoy a certain status that is more than internal self-government, something that is nearer to Dominion status. I think we can get this information from the White Paper.

From the first day of the conference meetings, we already could feel that the Colonial Office were not sincere in keeping their promise. The Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd, in his opening speech at the conference, stated that the British Government did not want Singapore to become an outpost of Peking, or even a colony of Peking. That was not true, because through my personal connections with several Members of Parliament and some Government departments, I was privately told that Mr Lennox-Boyd knew that the Chinese Government in Peking had no intention of coming into South-East Asia, which, of course, includes Malaya and Singapore. I think Mr Lennox-Boyd purposely emphasised that possibility in his speech. I think the Hon. the Chief Minister can still remember how I felt. I thought that since we conceded control over external affairs to Her Majesty's Government, what then would be the position when the question arose of Singapore's admission into the United Nations Organisation? I was so innocent! I was so optimistic, because I was even thinking of Singapore's admission into the United Nations Organisation! But after Mr Lennox Boyd's speech, all my hopes were dashed to the ground; I became so pessimistic. I think the local Press reported it. But I must admit that we had achieved something up to that stage. So I proposed that 15-minute adjournment in order to urge upon the delegation to be a little bit more realistic.

I did not agree with the Chief Minister when he said that it would not be good to eat a poisoned cake. The Labour Front's platform is to work the Rendel Constitution for four years - the then Progressive Party, ten years - and yet, after a year's working, we could ask for a significant constitutional advance. Therefore, why should we not devote time to trying out the new Lennox-Boyd constitution? We could come back from London and tell the people that we could not get what we wanted - immediate independence - but we could tell them that the British Government had promised to review the position after two years' working of the new constitution. We could then educate our people and reorganise our nationalist movement for independence. Maybe in one year, maybe in six months, we could get Dominion status. That was what I told the delegation, but my proposal did not have a seconder, not even from my colleagues! [Interruption.] No, I am speaking now as -

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair, and there cannot be any asides with Members on the right.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir. Then we came to the voting. The voting was most harmful to me. Now many people call me a lost political trustee. "Lim Cher Kheng is bribed by David Marshall for $100,000!" So my proposal was turned down, first, because I did not even have a seconder, and, secondly, I did not have any chance for a fair voting because the leader of the delegation, the Chief Minister, said the talks must break down. We all knew the procedure at these delegation meetings. If all Parties agreed, then the leader of the delegation could go back and tell Mr Lennox Boyd, "All the delegates agree. This is our stand." But if a certain delegate abstained or spoke against the matter under discussion, I do not think the Chief Minister could go back and tell Mr Lennox-Boyd that the delegates had agreed. Although there would be a majority decision, the British Government and the whole world would know that there were certain members in the delegation who had disagreed with the leader of the Merdeka Mission. At the delegation meetings I never regarded the Chief Minister as the leader of the Labour Front. I regarded him as the leader of the people of Singapore. I can let Mr Marshall down, but I cannot let the people of Singapore down. For the dignity of the people of Singapore, I said, "David, I am with you!" And even today I maintain that I was right. Therefore I find that I have no grounds for supporting this amendment.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, this is indeed a frightening amendment, frightening in the sense that it implies that the country and the people have suffered the loss of a good deal of confidence and stability, and because it further implies that the people should be aware of the true state of affairs. Sir, the people of Singapore, as far as I know, understood fully the contents of the recommendations made by the delegation at the London conference and the reasons for its failure, and I cannot see any reason why anybody should go and frighten them by saying, "Look, you have lost a lot of confidence. We have no stability in this country and we should do something about it." Therefore, I feel, Sir, that the keynote of this amendment is absolute fear in the mind of the mover, and if anybody supports it, he is also afraid.

To me, Sir, if I want to fight for freedom from slavery and to achieve political emancipation, I should have to fight to get rid of fear. I should be free from fear; and that is the main thing to tell the people - that if we are going to fight for freedom, we must rid our minds of fear.

Sir, I think that the Liberal-Socialist Party is misleading the people by frightening them. They feel that if freedom comes to us politically, capital will fly away; individual liberty will fly away and there will be nothing left for the people. This stand is absolutely untrue and if this propaganda of fear goes on in the minds of the people, the Party will be doing a great disservice to the future generation. I feel that the people should be taught that the first thing to achieve is freedom from fear, and by the guidance of the political Parties - guidance in the right direction - we shall be in a position to educate the people to achieve freedom, a freedom which we all would like to have.

As I see it, Sir, the reason for failure of the talks in London was on a fundamentally basic issue - the issue whether Singapore is to be granted complete internal self-government, or whether the internal administration should be a mixed administration of the United Kingdom Government and that of Singapore. As far as I am concerned, Sir, the delegation as a whole had shown to the people and the Government of Britain that the people of Singapore were not prepared to accept a mixed internal self-government. The people of Singapore want a self-government through which they can attain complete freedom from political rule, and to me this is the right step for them to take in order to achieve a feeling of confidence and stability.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom Government have one point in their mind. The international problem confronting Britain is so top-heavy that they could not even accede to a discussion on internal problems. But the urge of the people of Singapore and the will of the people of Singapore, demonstrated to the United Kingdom through a resolution approved by the Assembly, were reasons that prompted the United Kingdom to open this discussion. It has now been established beyond all doubt that the Singapore delegation had been exceptionally smart in winning for the people of Singapore a just solution. It may be incomplete, but I feel that we should not take that too seriously. We have made a beginning and if we are sincere and honest with the people of Singapore, not in the distant future but in the near future, we will be able to attain the freedom that we are anxious to get.

Sir, this amendment will mislead the people. It will confuse them to such an extent that they will not be able to know what this Assembly want, and what the Government want. On those grounds, I feel that it is completely irrelevant to the whole question of our fight for freedom, and I oppose the amendment.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the big arm of the Liberal-Socialists represented here were members of the now defunct Progressive Party. May they rest in peace! During the seven years that the Progressive Party held sway in the Legislative Council before the coming into force of the Rendel Constitution, they were wont to bask in the glory of their colonial masters, so much so that the verdict of the public during the last general election was clear - the Progressive Party could be trusted no more. Hence the defeat of all their stalwarts. I thought they had learnt their mistakes when they merged with the Democratic Party and gave birth to that strange and incomprehensible product - the Liberal-Socialist Party. The public, however, Sir, has not been taken in by this change of front, which is nothing but a sham to hoodwink the electorate. By their antics, they have disclosed their true colours. I find it very difficult to understand their political ideology, because they are neither Liberals nor Socialists.

When the Member for Serangoon was speaking yesterday, I stood up on a point of clarification. He said, with his, chest out and in a loud voice, "We've got citizenship." I stood up and asked him whom he meant by "we", and I was glad to hear then that he meant the whole delegation.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: We were asking what our demands were.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Why should I seek clarification -

Mr Speaker: Order. Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Why should I seek clarification on this point, Sir? Because when we were in London in the midst of our Merdeka talks, news was received from Singapore that the Liberal-Socialists fought and won citizenship rights for the people of Singapore and this, Sir, is what was meant by the Member for Changi - no longer a Liberal-Socialist - when he said that the All-Party Delegation in London were playing party politics. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister, in moving his substantive motion yesterday, endeavoured to give the Liberal-Socialists a political lift in the estimation of the public, and even the representatives of the P.A.P. - who are most violent in their criticism of the Liberal-Socialists - in their speeches yesterday had no ill-feelings towards them. Why were these friendly overtures made to the Member for Serangoon who, I believe now, must have been mesmerised by the leader of the P.A.P. who said that the man must be getting mad? Why did we make these friendly overtures to the Liberal-Socialists, Sir? It is because we believe, and believe rightly, that we now must have a common, united, non-Communist front if the next delegation going to London to resume the fight for freedom were to succeed. We believe that success could only be attained if we could speak from a position of strength. If, Sir, they had any political acumen, they would have cashed in on these friendly overtures and thereby draw strength from us for the battle that is to come. But what do we see? We see the ridiculous spectacle of a political Party, which claims to fight for the inalienable rights of the people of Singapore, crumbling just because the Colonial Office had applied the whip, and now they are prepared to debase the dignity of the people of Singapore by saying that the delegation should have accepted the offer of Her Majesty's Government. Did the representatives of the Liberal-Socialists express such an opinion in London? They did not. When the fateful question was put to them whether or not the delegation should accept the offer of Her Majesty's Government, they abstained from voting, Sir.

Mr William Tan: Point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was at the meeting -

Mr Speaker: What is the hon. Member's point of order? Is it a point of order?

Mr William Tan: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member indicate his point of order?

Mr William Tan: Contrary to what the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock) said, the actual question the Chief Minister put to the delegation during the 15-minute adjournment was, "Anyone in favour of the breakdown of the talks?" That was the question asked, and I made an appeal, 1 told the Chief Minister of the consequences -

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member come to his point of order and not make a speech?

Mr William Tan: Sir, the statement that the Minister for Labour and Welfare has made to this House is all wrong.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I have said on many occasions and I say it again that the English language is indeed a difficult language! I said they abstained. They really abstained, whatever the question was. "Do you agree with our stand?" "Abstain." If they wished to accept the British offer, they could have said, "We are against." But, no, they abstained, because at that time they did not have the courage of their convictions, or maybe at that time they were not yet so repentant as they are now since they came back to Singapore. Three of them abstained, but the fourth representative - the Member for Changi - was so fed up to the teeth with them that he openly declared yesterday, "I do not want party politics any more. I declare myself an independent." And he dissociated himself from membership of a Party that is neither Liberal nor Socialist. In London, Sir, they said one thing and now in Singapore they say another, and yet the Member for Tanglin talked of cynicism and political dishonesty! Can he please tell me how he would describe the behaviour of his own Party members when in London they said they abstained and today here they say the delegation should have accepted?

Mr John Ede: Absolutely correct!

Mr Lim Yew Hock: All right, all right! Therefore I would say, if I may, to the people of Singapore, "Oh people of Singapore, punish them not for what they do, because they know not what they do!"

Sir, let us now examine the cause of this amendment, which is yet another change of front. In London, when there was an indication of a possible breakdown in the talks, we received news from Singapore that the Liberal-Socialists were so brazen-faced as to announce that they were willing and prepared to take over the government!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: My god!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: The news, Sir, did not cause us any consternation. In fact, it gave us a lot of amusement -

The Chief Minister: And disgust.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: And now, Sir, we are again being amused by their moving their amendment. Yesterday the Chief Minister declared that at the end of this sitting he would resign. "Ah, ha! Now is the time to make another bid." And up jumped the leader of the Liberal-Socialists who said that we should have accepted the offer of Her Majesty's Government. Why, oh why in the name of political integrity did they not say such a thing in London? Why did they abstain and now say that they want it? Sir, I really give up!

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

Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 18; Abstentions, 5. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Abdul Hamid Bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Jumabhoy, R. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Lim Choon Mong Braga, A. J. Sutherland, G. A. P. Chew Swee Kee. Tan, William. Goh Chew Chua. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Abstentions Butterfield, C. H. Goode, W. A. C. Absent Hart, T. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Koon Teck. Lee Choon Eng Wong Foo Nam.

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House,

That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London.

The alternative is to approve the stand taken by the British Government at the talks and this stand was the insistence by the British Government that it wanted control over internal security, that it wanted over-riding powers to legislate over the heads of the elected representatives of the people and that it wanted the right to interfere in almost every aspect of public life in the name of safeguarding its external defence interests. This stand of the British Government went right against their own professions with regard to the future of Singapore. It is difficult for me to see, Sir, how any genuine representative of the people of Singapore can fail to condemn the stand taken by the British Government during the talks; and what about the stand taken by the Singapore delegation? Foreign observers were surprised by the modesty of Singapore's claims. What our delegation asked for did not amount to independence. They only asked for complete self-government and conceded to Britain the right to control external defence and foreign affairs. Even these modest ambitions were frustrated by the attitude of the British Government; perhaps our modesty was our main enemy. The response of colonialism to modesty had been arrogant. It has been so in other colonial territories. However, the attitude of the British Government has achieved one thing. It has brought about a growing realisation on the part of the people of Singapore that the unity of all anti-colonial forces is essential. It has strengthened the people in their determination to bring colonialism to an early end.

The English language Press and interested elements have been trying to put the blame for the failure of the talks on our Chief Minister. I say to this, Sir, "It is utter rubbish." The Hon. the Chief Minister has proved loyal to the mandate of the All-Party Delegation right to the end. It is, of course, in the interest of the Colonial Office and its henchmen that they should pretend to be innocent in trying to put the blame on others.

I am sure that this Assembly by voting for the motion before the House will give the lie to the cheap and dishonest propaganda carried on against the Hon. the Chief Minister by the English Press. It is a tribute to the patience and reasonableness of the people of Singapore who took the breakdown with calmness. The attitude of the British Government has aroused more contempt for Britain than anger against her; contempt, because she is so slow in learning the lessons of history; contempt, because at a time when colonialism is on its last legs everywhere, she thinks she can maintain her law - a fortress of colonialism in the resurgence of Asian nationalism - and contempt for those who only learn their lessons too late.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

The Chief Minister: In reply, Sir. I would like to deal, Sir, with a few points that have arisen in this debate and I shall start with Mr Sutherland. He referred yesterday, Sir, to the threat of Communism as being one of the reasons why we should have conceded this day-to-day foreign control over internal security. Now, Sir, I would ask him this: does he really believe that colonialism can fight Communism, that colonialism can keep out Communism and that imperial bayonets and bullets do keep out Communism? For more than a decade in this very territory, Sir - which is a colonial territory - and our sister territory across the Straits, which is a colonial territory, we have seen Communism flourish and thumb its nose at the bayonets and the bullets of imperialism. It feeds on colonialism. The existence of colonialism makes it possible for Communism to thrive. It is because we ourselves feel very strongly about the Communist threat that we have refused to make ourselves partners to this fraud upon the people in the continuation of colonial rule; that we have sought a position of stability, of political freedom; that we have got to be masters in our own house and, as masters in our own house, meet the threat of destruction from within. Sir, I have spoken these words before and they may well fall on deaf ears; if he would permit me to quote, and I trust he will listen with respect to some words of the President of the United States of America delivered on the 25th of May, 1956 - only 13 days ago - I shall trouble the House, Sir, with a few paragraphs which are interesting and worthwhile:

"Today a militant aggressive Communist doctrine is dominant over much of the world's surface and over hundreds of millions of the world's people.

In the postwar period, we have seen it indulged in a particular cynical type of colonialism (he is not referring to the Colonial Office) expressed in the Communist subjugation of once free and proud nations in Europe and Asia. Simultaneously, in the free areas of the world, 600 million people in more than a score of new countries have achieved independence.

Communism denies a spiritual premise on which education has been based. According to that doctrine there is no God, there is no soul in man; there is no reward beyond the satisfaction of daily needs. Consequently, for the human being, Communism is cruel, intolerant, atheistic. This doctrine, committed to conquest by lure, intimidation and force, seeks to destroy the political concepts and institutions that we hold to be dearer than life itself.

Thus Communism poses a threat from which even this mighty nation is not wholly immune. Yet Communism in its deepest sense is a gigantic failure. Even in the countries that dominate, hundreds of millions there still cling to their religious faiths, still are moved by aspirations for justice and for freedom, still dream of the day when they can walk fearlessly in the fullness of human freedom."

Just as we in Singapore subject to the authoritarian rule of the Colonial Office dream of walking in the fullness of freedom. Two more paragraphs, Sir:

"The destiny of man is freedom and justice under his Creator. Any ideology that denies this universal faith will ultimately perish or be recast. This is the first great truth that must underlie all our thinking, all our striving in this struggling world.

A second truth is that the fundamental principles of human liberty and free government are powerful forces of human energy, loyalty and dedication and guides to enduring success. They are mightier than armaments and armies."

That is what we sought for the people, Sir. We sought to give an opportunity for the powerful sources of human energy, loyalty and dedication to guide us to success over this threat. We tried to make the British people realise this truth, that freedom is a greater force against Communism than armaments and armies. The threat is there and I say you will not meet it by the perpetuation of colonialism. You will only strengthen it and it may well destroy the very interests which Mr Sutherland and I seek to protect because, Sir, though they will not see it, the long-term interests of this Colony are at one with the long-term interests of the United Kingdom. In the final analysis, we are on the same side of the table but, for the present, they would be blind. That is my answer.

Sir, Mr Sutherland - I trust who did not seek to be unfair - has made selective quotations from the vernacular Press to prove that the vernacular Press was against Merdeka and for acceptance of the British offer. I have read the Chung Shing Jit Pao of the 19th of May and I lay it on the table for hon. Members to judge whether the excerpts which Mr Sutherland read were, in fact, fair to that paper and as for the Tamil Murasu, Sir, it is hopping mad. I have got this morning's paper and you will permit me to read it:

"Mr Sutherland alleged that the Tamil Murasu also had written stating that the time was not ripe and suitable for full internal self-government. What the Tamil Murasu had stated in its editorial on the 18th of May is that it is the British Government's argument that the conditions of Singapore are not suitable for complete self-government. The experience of the people to take over the responsibility of the administration is very, very little - that is the British Government's view."

I continue:

"Moreover, there are Communist activities here. They are not the views of the Tamil Murasu as Mr Sutherland alleged. In fact, the Tamil Murasu has been backing with all its force at its command the demands of the Merdeka Mission for complete internal self-government for Singapore."

In one paragraph, it has stated:

"So far as the Merdeka talks are concerned, the people of Singapore could not find fault with the Chief Minister. Right to the end, he acted in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the delegation. It had to be accepted that nobody else could have discussed Singapore's demand for self-government as efficiently as he did. It is indeed curious that the British Government is ready to grant independence to the Federation, which at the same time brings out the permanent bugbear as a reason for denying independence to Singapore. It is clear, from these passages, what the Tamil Murasu, the organ of the Malayan Tamils, stands for."

It seems to me that there is an apology due and I would like to add this since the question of vernacular papers has come up: one of my first acts on returning from England was to call in the Chinese editors and, at a separate conference, the Malay editors, to thank them for their honest stand in respect of the aspirations of the Singapore people, to thank them for the genuine support they gave and for their clear understanding of the issues. Let us be clear, Sir, as to where we stand. The Chinese Press, the Tamil Press and the Malay Press are domiciled. They understand the feelings of the Malayans. They do not represent the transient's view. They do not have loyalties which blind them to the truth.

In the speech, Sir, apart from some inaccuracies and opinions with which I do not hold - it was an eminently able one - there was an unhappy discordant note struck by Mr Sutherland. He said in ending up, "I will not censure my Colonial Office." What is the distinction, Sir, between the attitude of a man who will not censure his own Government department, right or wrong, and the attitude of a man under the Communists or under the Fascists? None of them do. It is democracy that gives us the right to speak openly and to criticise where there is wrong and I am more than a little ashamed of an Englishman who has not the courage to criticise his own Colonial Office when it is wrong. I should have thought that they have more courage than that, Sir, and are capable of being loyal and yet critical.

The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) who, I am sure, would not seek to be unfair, has suggested that I was seeking to cover up the disunity in the delegation and there is an implication that I was seeking to do this for some ulterior motive. Let me repeat once more, Sir, and I say this in honesty and sincerity. Disunity there was - considerable disunity - but this was behind the scenes and all Parties should be congratulated on the manner in which they succeeded ultimately in a miraculous unity in facing the Colonial Office at the conference table.

The Member for Changi said that all Parties indulged in party politics. I am sure he was bedevilled and bewildered at some of his colleagues in his own Party but let us be fair to those on the Government Benches. He must appreciate that we suffered humiliation quietly at the hands of the arrogant Secretary of the People's Action Party and we took it because we strove to maintain unity. He must remember the time when he said to me, "Do not be so soft. Throw the P.A.P. out"; and he must recognise today that we were right in being patient and that strong measures at that time would have broken up any unity and would have brought the odium of breakdown on the Singapore delegation and not where it truly rests - on the Colonial Office. Sir, the Labour Front did not at any time nor did any individual member indulge in any party politics. Let us be fair.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) said, "If we cannot have this poisoned cake, what about the Rendel Constitution? Is it not much worse than this poisoned cake?" I could not agree more, Sir. This is worse than a poisoned cake. It is gilded muck. But we did not put our hand to this Rendel Constitution voluntarily. The people of Singapore did not put their signatures and accept it for years to come. We are free to fight it and we will fight it. What we would have done in London though had we accepted this constitution was voluntarily in the name of the people of Singapore to put our hand to it and to tie them hand and foot for years to the constitution.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: No, two years.

The Chief Minister: Even two years.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

The Chief Minister: Sir, I thank the hon. Member for an attempted correction. There would have been a right to review after two years but no right to compel rectification. We would merely retain the status quo when no agreement was reached. We would still go back to the original constitution. So it was tying this country hand and foot to an agreement, which, I repeat, is worthy only of contempt.

The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) - and I think the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) - has put the argument more clearly when he said, "Why not proceed step by step? Why not take half a loaf and then go on to more?" Sir, the best way to answer that argument is to try and repeat to you the argument of a member of the delegation who sought to advise us to accept. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) was there and he will remember and this is how the argument went. He said, "Let us take it. We will have control of Malayanisation. We will have control of the Police. We would have organised the country and worked up antagonism against the British and then throw them into the sea"; and that is just exactly what would have happened because if we had accepted this constitution, we would have all come back fighting and there would have been no distinction between the Labour Front, the P.A.P. or the Communists. Would this have made for stability? That is what the Member for Stamford (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) was trying to explain. We were fighting for long-term stability and to have accepted this constitution, to have worked, to have returned to a state where we would all have to work up anti-racial antagonism and anti-British antagonism, would have destroyed any possibility of stability, because it would have been for a period of years. The British could have said quite rightly, "Look, you agreed to this. No more of this nonsense. We are not going to see you" and, for a period of years, we would have to stomach and work up an ulcer that would have finally spoilt the whole set-up.

Sir, I have listened to all the arguments and I must say that not one argument has been presented which has not underlined the correctness of our move in rejecting this constitution. I now move and I trust I will have the whole Assembly with me,

That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London.

Mr Speaker: I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.