CORRESPONDENCE ON REOPENING OF SINGAPORE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Sir, I move the motion that stands in my name,

That this Assembly takes note of the correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies between the 17th and the 30th May, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1956, on the subject of reopening the Singapore Constitutional Conference.

Sir, in the normal course, this motion would not have been necessary and the correspondence which you now see in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1956 would have been incorporated with the White Paper as, in fact, Sir, is the case with the White Paper published by Her Majesty's Government and presented to Parliament; but I take this unusual step in order not to prejudice the debate on the stand of the delegation and in order to afford an opportunity to those who would censure me and who may not have had the time to put down a substantive motion.

Sir, you will see that I have so worded my motion that any Member who may seek to censure me can ask for the removal of the three words "takes note of" and substitute one word "censures". I cannot bring a vote of censure on myself, Sir, and I think it must be admitted that I am giving the fullest opportunity to those who may wish to do so. Because, Sir, it is not permitted to assume of any Member of the Assembly that his conduct should be ascribed to irrepressible unscrupulousness sparked by the malice of jealousy, we must assume that he has acted with a sense of responsibility. In the circumstances, Sir, I must assume that when the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) called a Press conference in London on the very morning of the 17th of May when I was making efforts to reopen the constitutional conference, to his knowledge, and publicly made the filthiest accusations against me, he was acting with a sense of responsibility. It is true that by his actions he not only sullied me, sullied the whole delegation which had just finished negotiations with the Colonial Office, but he also sullied the reputation of Singapore, in the very country where we were seeking to justify our claim for political freedom.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies owes the Member for Tanjong Pagar a debt of gratitude to have given him the opportunity to say on the morning of the 18th of May in the House of Commons that the Singapore delegation had "clearly disintegrated" and to put on record in his White Paper his view of that disintegration thereby seeking to throw the odium of the breakdown onto the Singapore delegation.

When I returned to Singapore, Sir, I found that the English Press had taken the cue of the Member for Tanjong Pagar and sought to lead the country in a campaign of virulent abuse that made me the scapegoat of the frustrations of defeat. I consider that this sadistic pastime, in which the Press of Singapore and Members of this Assembly have indulged of bear-baiting the Chief Minister, is dangerous to the welfare of the country and to the self-respect of the people of Singapore. If a Member of the Assembly wishes to attack the Chief Minister or any other Minister, the proper forum for such attack is to face him openly in this Assembly and not to go stabbing him in the back by one-sided Press statements. In the circumstances, Sir, in order to bring this important principle home, I have, as my last act as Chief Minister, brought this motion so that I trust the Members of this Assembly and the people of this country will appreciate that the proper forum for criticism by Assemblymen of Assemblymen and Ministers is here and I now give an opportunity to those who have so foully reviled me in my absence to condemn me in my presence.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar spoke truly yesterday when he said that, on the night of the breakdown of the conference, I had no idea whatsoever of reopening the talks, but he must have been conscious that I had not the slightest intention of giving up the struggle for freedom from colonialism. The talks broke down at about 4.30. Between 4.30 and 11 o'clock that night, I gave two television interviews, several radio interviews and I addressed a large gathering at a public meeting. On the following morning, I considered it my duty to hand over all the conference papers of both sides to various newspapers and I took them to Members of Parliament including Members of the Labour Party. I then learnt that at 3 p.m., the Secretary of State was going to make a statement on Singapore. I did not learn it from the Colonial Office, Sir, but I learnt it from some friends who are Members of the House. I managed to rush from one of my meetings to the House of Commons and there heard the Secretary of State explain that the breakdown of the talks, as you have heard from Hansard, was absolutely, completely and entirely due to our refusing him powers over external defence and foreign affairs. Mr Noel Baker, who was there, was good enough to assist me and when he heard that I disagreed with the interpretation suggested that he call a Press conference at which I could give my own views of the subject, but before doing so, I asked for an interview with the leaders of the British Labour Party and, at that interview, whilst I was trying to explain to them why I did not trust the Colonial Office - whereas I am completely willing to trust the British people and the House of Commons - an idea occurred to me. I put this to them and they, who are experienced and impartial, said that the idea certainly had the possibility of an honest compromise and it might well be possible to reopen the negotiations before the breakdown had turned cold. I then returned in haste to the flat and called an urgent meeting of the delegation for 6 p.m. This was, Sir, Wednesday, the 16th of May. Only a few delegates turned up and it was quite obvious that they were suffering from the lassitude and depression of defeat. I did not wish to press it further. I asked them all and I sent a message to the remainder to come to the flat again for a final meeting at 9 o'clock the following morning. That same night as you are aware, Sir - Wednesday night - at the end of a very pleasant social evening and at the request of the Secretary of State, I accompanied him to his home and, from midnight till 2 a.m., we discussed this idea for reopening the talks. He and his Minister of State for the Colonies were present and when we ended up, they both suggested that they would wish to know the reaction of the remainder of the delegates before they would give their own views. So it was arranged that there should be a social function - a tea party - at which to attempt an informal sounding of individual members before the matter was taken up on an official basis.

Sir, at nine the following morning, the delegates were there and I found that in so far as the Opposition Parties were concerned, they had, it seemed, received Party mandates and were not interested in reopening the talks. I asked whether I might, on my own responsibility, make this approach and this was agreed to. The Member for Tanjong Pagar was present and he himself said, "If you want to make it on your own responsibility, you can do so."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: When was this?

The Chief Minister: This was at 9 to 9.30 a.m, in my flat on Thursday, the 17th of May.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On the 16th of May.

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Chief Minister says 17th and the Opposition says 16th.

The Chief Minister: If, it please you, Sir, I have it in mind. I have a chronology. Sir, on the 15th we failed; on the 16th there was a statement in the House of Commons at 3 p.m.; on the 16th, was my social function with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 16th also, at 6 p.m., was my meeting of the delegates and on the 17th morning, was my next and final meeting. From there, we rushed, I think, to the B.B.C. for a broadcast "Calling Asia". Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar will now remember.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, although it was agreed that I should do this on my own responsibility, lost no time in making impossible the success of the approach and he proceeded to take steps, very successfully, to torpedo my efforts. He called a Press conference at which he indulged in the most scurrilous abuse of me and of the idea and then proceeded to manoeuvre amongst the other members of the delegation.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar seems to have the effect on some people of a hooded cobra on a rabbit. He fascinates them and then he hypnotizes them into docility and unthinking obedience. You know what the result was of that effort to reopen negotiations. On the morning of the 17th, I put my conversation with the Secretary of State in writing and he received the letter on the same day. Now, Sir, what was this idea? If I may read the letter, Sir - it is not very long:

"Since the breakdown of the Conference on Tuesday an idea for a new approach to our differences has occurred to me. I am putting forward the suggestion contained in this letter entirely on my own initiative and responsibility. You are aware how repugnant the whole principle of over-riding powers of legislation is to me personally and how dangerous I consider the existence of such powers is to the principle I seek to establish of stable and friendly relations with the United Kingdom. These imperial powers of legislation (as defined by you) are far outside the scope of what is normally understood by the phrase 'external defence'. This question of over-riding powers is also very repugnant to the majority of my colleagues and in the circumstances I do not wish to raise the matter with them again until I have some assurance that there is a prospect that my suggestion would be acceptable to the Colonial Office as a basis for negotiation.

The suggestion is this: -

(a) that the over-riding powers of legislation by Orders in Council and Emergency Regulations sought by you, in the context of your proposal for the composition of the Defence and Security Council, should be subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons (such approval to be prior or subsequent as the circumstances require);

(b) in order to meet the very real need of the people of Singapore for an end of colonial rule, the relationship of the State of Singapore with the United Kingdom should be outside the scope of the Colonial Office and in any other Ministry as may seem appropriate;

(c) that there should be a representative of Her Majesty in Singapore as the head of the State in Singapore through whom the loyalty of the people of this nascent state would find a means of coalescing. Her Majesty's representative should be a Malayan and completely distinct from the political representative of Her Majesty's Government in Singapore.

If you consider this a basis for re-opening negotiations, I should be glad to hear from you and will seek to persuade my colleagues to agree. Such resumption of negotiations would be completely without prejudice to any decisions, which may be taken by either side after full examination of the implications.

I know you have put a great deal of effort into these negotiations at a time when you are burdened with very heavy responsibilities in connection with other territories. We of the Singapore delegation have also been through a period of strain in stretching to the uttermost our anxious efforts to achieve agreement.

I am quite agreeable to any arrangement whereby the resumption of the Conference should take place after a short period of rest, during which both sides would undertake to issue no statement or press interviews. (This was, Sir, to meet his particular circumstances that he had planned a ten-day yachting holiday).

If this suggestion proves unacceptable to you and this becomes my last official communication with you permit me to express my appreciation of the personal friendliness you have shown towards me and my admiration for your very real abilities."

Mr Speaker: Order, please. It has been pointed out to me that possibly the Governor's recommendation or consent has not yet been signified.

The Chief Minister: I am indeed indebted to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I keep forgetting this is the Rendel Constitution. His Excellency the Governor has given his consent for this motion to be considered by the Assembly.

Sir, on that last phrase, I was taunted with it by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) that I should express admiration for Mr Lennox-Boyd's ability. Well, let me say this and I repeat it: I have the highest regard for that man's ability. He is an asset to any side for which he bats and I am sorry he is batting for the Colonial Office. That does not mean that I respect his policies.

Now, if I may explain these three ingredients of my suggestion. I think I have made it clear how dangerous I considered the over-riding imperial legislative powers which the Colonial Office sought to retain but if, in fact, it was no longer the Colonial Office that would be responsible for the relationship of Singapore with the United Kingdom but some other Ministry accustomed to dealing with human beings as equals, and if - that is the main "if" - before the British High Commissioner could use these over-riding powers he had to seek the approval and public debate of the House of Commons, I considered that the imperial over-riding legislative powers would, in fact, if not in theory, become almost a dead letter. Sir, it is true that the Conservative Party has a majority. It is also true that they can steamroller anything they want but to work on that basis would be to say, "Let us have one election and close down Parliament and the majority can do what it pleases." That, in fact, as hon. Members in these short fourteen months of this Government have learnt, is not the way democracy works and the fact that a matter has to come before the House of Commons, that it has to be publicly debated and it has to submit itself to the full glare of the country's Press publicity, would be a very grave deterrent to any misuse of those powers. It is true that the continual existence of these powers even with this protection would be an irritation to the people of Singapore but no British civil servant would have dared to seek to interfere in our daily life when he knew that he had to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons and his conduct would come under the scrutiny of Members of both sides of the House and the people of the country.

Sir - it may be a little difficult for the man-in-the-street to understand - I have followed with interest parliamentary procedure and traditions for a long time and I was satisfied in my mind that the acceptance of these provisions and affirmative resolution in the House of Commons would, to a large extent, nullify the evil of the over-riding powers. It would, shall we say, be an agent to counteract the poison in the cake.

My second request, Sir, was one that merely repeated what the delegation had consistently insisted on - the transfer of our relations with the United Kingdom from the Colonial Office to another Ministry. To those who have not suffered the authoritarian rule and traditions of arrogance of the Colonial Office and its inhumanity in the exploitation of its empire, this might seem a small matter. But to me and to many of us, this is not a trimming as the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) suggested. This is a matter of importance both as to content and as to psychological effect. The people of Singapore would then be conscious that there was an end to colonial rule and we ourselves in our relations with the United Kingdom would be able to deal with persons who have traditions of dealing with human beings as equals and not as imbecilic slaves.

The third and last ingredient of my suggestion, Sir, was that the British could have their High Commissioner. Very well, let him be the Chairman of the Defence and Security Council but he should not be the head of the State of Singapore. We could not be expected to give our loyalty to a political representative of Her Majesty's Government with whom we might be in constant conflict on various aspects of the constitution. It is impossible, Sir, to ask the people genuinely to give their loyalty to such a personality. We therefore said we wanted a Malayan Governor-General who would not be a representative of Her Majesty's Government but would be the representative of Her Majesty with the important though decorative functions of the Queen. In this fashion, we hoped to have the opportunity to coalesce our feelings of loyalty and through this to grow to full nationhood. When the Member for Serangoon says, "There is no difference between Governor and Governor-General", he showed, if I may say so, Sir, a complete lack of understanding of the political content of these different posts. The difference is the same as between Mr Hitler and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. One is a constitutional monarch acting on the advice of Her Ministers and in no way interfering her personality in the politics of the day - which would be a Malayan Governor-General - and the other is a dictator as is our Governor.

Then, Sir, I received a message on the early morning of the 18th - again from a friend in the House of Commons and not from the Secretary of State - saying to me, "You said that you did not get a reply from the Secretary of State to your letter. Well, he is going to reply to you in public in the House of Commons at eleven o'clock." So I rushed down to the House of Commons, Sir, and to my delighted astonishment, I heard him say - I read from column 2381 of Hansard, Vol. 552, No. 157 of the 18th of May, 1956:

"The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd): I was approached early yesterday by the Chief Minister of Singapore (This is, Sir, after he has received my letter) proposing a basis for resumption of negotiations. As a consequence, I asked the Singapore delegation to meet me informally. Unfortunately, out of the twelve delegates who are still in London, only the Chief Minister and two of his Government colleagues found themselves able to attend. When I asked whether these proposals had the support of the delegation he replied they were purely his personal suggestions."

Now, listen to this, Sir:

"I stated that I was perfectly ready to discuss these proposals (in the plural) provided that they were put forward either by the delegation or by the Singapore Government."

Sir, at 5.30 that afternoon, I received his letter on page 2 and you will notice there that he merely referred to one ingredient of my suggestion and conveniently, may I say it, intentionally, ignored the remaining two. That letter was received by me after his departure for Southampton - no doubt, an accident. In any event, Sir, I sat down and wrote the letter at page 3 pleading for clarification and I asked the Colonial Office that it be delivered to the Secretary of State. I was told that the Secretary of State was on the high seas and would not surface for ten days. So I asked that it be sent by despatch rider to the Minister of State for the Colonies who had already gone to his country home and I contacted him by telephone. I was told that I need not expect a reply till I reached Singapore, but, in fact, I did get a reply, Sir. You will find at page 4 from the Minister of State on the night before my early departure for Delhi and Singapore - the night of the 20th - I received this in which he said, "I should be in no doubt as to what the Secretary of State meant", but he still did not say what he meant. Sir, I wrote to him a reply on the same night and I taxed him with the terms of his letter when he was good enough to come and see me off at the airport on the following morning.

It is true we had a conversation then but it was a conversation which the Minister of State emphasised was not for publication in any aspect and it is therefore with some surprise and not a little disgust that I find the Secretary of State in his telegram of the 30th of May referring to these conversations which were supposed to be private in every aspect.

Sir, I was more than a little astonished at the extraordinary reaction in Singapore to my efforts to reopen negotiations and I asked my loyal friend and colleague, the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock), "Can you understand?" He said to me, "Well, to the Chinese population, your action in rushing back to push open the door that they had slammed in your face was undignified" and he quoted to me, Sir, the Chinese proverb about the swallowing back of your phlegm once you have spat it out.

Sir, I am sorry if there are citizens in this city who consider that my action in seeking to reopen negotiations was undignified and to them I will say this: I think dignity has its place at the proper time but if dignity interferes with the welfare of the people, then it is not only unrewarding and sterile, it can be criminal.

When I attended the House of Commons on the afternoon of Wednesday, the 16th of May, I realised that here was an opportunity either for forcing the reopening of the talks or for making known to the whole world in the clearest possible fashion the humbug of the Colonial Office and their blatant unreasonableness. Either way, we stood to gain. Either way it was for the benefit of Singapore. Was I to sit on my bottom with injured pride and sorrowful dignity when I could do something to help? That is not the way I live, Sir. Since there was an opportunity to do some good, I took it even if I had to take it alone just as I welcomed the invitation to break my stay at New Delhi in order to acquaint the Prime Minister of India - that very human and truly great man - of the true facts of the case in the hope that when he does discuss it - as I understand he will discuss it at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference - he would at least be fully cognizant of our own point of view.

Has any good resulted from my effort to force the reopening of negotiations? If I am to believe my colleagues, no good has resulted for me personally. They say that if I had returned immediately after the breakdown, I would have been a hero, but thanks to the opportunity I gave to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and to the English Press, almost the entire population of Singapore was misled as to the nature of my efforts. I do say this, Sir: my efforts, if they have achieved nothing else, have proved two things. They have proved the genuine anxiety of the people of Singapore for an honourable peace with the United Kingdom and for an honest constitution. They have also permitted world opinion to penetrate the sanctimonious smokescreen of British propaganda and enabled the world to judge of the ugly brutality of the new British colonial policy.

This much is now clear as I indicated yesterday. There are only two issues dividing the Secretary of State from me as these letters prove. One is a Malayan Governor-General; and let us make it clear: this does not interfere with the appointment of a British High Commissioner to be Chairman of the Defence and Security Council. That is their business. We want our Governor-General to be a Malayan and the second thing Sir, is to transfer us from the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office to another Ministry. Only these two things separate us and yet we have Prime Ministers saying, "The breakdown of the constitutional talks is due to powers over internal security"; and we have the Secretary of State saying, "No, no, the breakdown is due to external defence." How is it possible - I would ask not only this House but I would ask the world that listens - to twist the truth to such an extent as to pretend that the two issues now remaining between the Secretary of State and myself can be deemed to affect either internal security or external defence? I have not known even Communist propaganda go the length of such blatant lies - I repeat lies.

I think it is good for the people of Singapore and world public opinion to have these issues clear-cut. I still hope that once the hurt pride of the Colonial Office is mollified by the diplomacy of my successor, it will give way to the pressure of world opinion and especially Asian opinion and let me add English opinion, too, Sir, because when I was in England, I was satisfied that if it was English public opinion or even if it was the House of Commons that was to decide our fate and to decide freely without the coercion of a Whip, we would have got our very moderate and very honest aims and plans. I would not like to believe, Sir, that the failure of the constitutional conference in fact and in truth ushers in a new era and tolls the knell of passing day for the humanitarian policy and principles which made possible the retention by the United Kingdom of the friendship and co-operation of her colonies, and therefore I say, Sir, that my efforts in seeking to reopen these negotiations, although they have been abortive - and in this as to who is to blame, I let the Assembly judge from the recital of the facts - they have, in fact, clarified in the public mind the real issues and the public not only of Singapore and of England but of many other countries now recognise that there is no truth whatsoever in the Colonial Office propaganda about external defence and foreign affairs. I believe that there will be mounting pressure to give us the fulfilment of our legitimate aspirations.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I nearly missed this last opportunity of sharing a debate together with our illustrious Chief Minister. I was supposed to be elsewhere at this moment. I still have to go very shortly but may I just speak on the position as I saw it.

On Tuesday, 15th May, the talks broke down. It broke down on the question of who was to be the Chairman of the Defence and Security Council and who was to have the last word on the necessity for these over-riding powers of legislation. It was a vital principle which we had discussed for at least five preceding days and we decided, on Tuesday, that we could not yield and that we had to stand firm. It was a matter of principle and we stood firm.

Sir, I do not think anyone can be more vehement than the Hon. the Chief Minister when he denounced the proposal as bad, wicked and poisonous. I have here with me the English morning papers of May the 16th. They have more or less fair and accurate reports of the series of Press conferences and. T.V. interviews held by our Chief Minister that evening, together with one public meeting where I was on the same platform. One report which gives a fair report is the one in the Manchester Guardian. It said:

"The Singapore constitutional talks were broken off last evening with no agreement reached. Mr David Marshall, the Chief Minister and leader of the Singapore delegation, will fly home on Sunday - earlier if he can get a seat on a plane - and will then resign. He has so informed the Governor who is in London. It is understood that the Governor cannot accept his resignation until they both return to Singapore.

Mr Marshall was in a bitter, angry mood on emerging from the final meeting, and at an impromptu Press conference, he used violent and ill-tempered words. If, he said, there were fresh elections in Singapore as a result of his resignation he and his Party would boycott them - or rather, he said, on second thoughts, they would put up advanced lepers for election and return lepers to show their contempt for the present Constitution."

Then it goes on to say:

"One need not question the genuineness of Mr Marshall's disappointment at the break-down of these talks - "it was the greatest disappointment of my life", he said. But it was embarrassing to witness so frank and uncontrolled an exhibition of it, It did not inspire..."

Sir, if we did not agree with those statements, we would have dissociated ourselves from them. He spoke as the leader of the delegation. Though we ourselves might have chosen less vehement language, we generally shared the sentiments he expressed. But it is important, when we conduct the affairs of a people, that we should not only say what we feel, but also act in a manner which leaves nobody in doubt that we have acted according to it.

On Wednesday, Sir, there was no lassitude of defeat as far as I remember. I went round St. James Park in the morning to shake off the ill-effects of smoky conference rooms. I had a sturdy lunch -

The Chief Minister: Lucky man.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - and I sat down to read the afternoon papers one of which was the Evening Standard and I think this picture of the Chief Minister described the feeling of the delegation: anger, frustration and a slight touch of bitterness. At five o'clock, I received a telephone call from the secretary of the delegation, Mr Hoffman. I was informed that there was to be a meeting of all delegates at six. I was astounded, because I thought that henceforth we would just march on holding one public meeting after another. Perhaps on a Sunday we would hold a mass protest rally of 10,000 in Trafalgar Square just like the Cypriots did the week before. The students were or- ganising protest meetings. The Movement for Colonial Freedom was organising a protest meeting. When I asked the secretary what it was about, he said that there was a possibility of reopening the talks.

And so this was one of the lighter moments those of us who were in London shared: I went to wake up my friend and back-seat driver the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) who shared my flat. He was fast asleep - I do not know whether it was the heavy, tiring and tedious labour of the conference. I shook him up and said, "We have a meeting at six. You know we are going to reopen the talks." He stood up and looked at me astounded and he said, "Go away. Do not play fool with me." So I said, "No, I am not playing the fool. There is a meeting at six" and we went and so did the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan). I think our memory on this point is quite clear. It was the Wednesday following the breakdown and we told the Hon. the Chief Minister that we could not share his point of view. We could not stop him if he wished to do anything on his own initiative. In fact, on that occasion, I was somewhat dazed by it all. The one who was most vehement was my friend the Member for Tiong Bahru. However, it was all confidential and I went off to dinner with some friends. I listened, with a sense of doom, to the seven o'clock B.B.C. news which opened up with the headline that the Chief Minister of Singapore was resigning. Then at ten o'clock the B.B.C. news said, "The Chief Minister of Singapore has announced that he has a fresh approach." Well, quite honestly, I thought that it was a serious breach of confidence. We were told at six o'clock that the whole thing was in confidence. At ten o'clock I heard it over the B.B.C. I then said to myself, "Well, since it is now public, we must publicly dissociate ourselves from it." So we called a Press conference for the following day at half-past eleven.

Sir, this is the last sitting of this session. If what I have said of him has affronted the Hon. the Chief Minister personally, I am sorry. Politically, I will not retract one word of what I have said. I acted on behalf of my Party and I am convinced that what I did was right, that my Party had to dissociate itself publicly from a secret move which had become public.

Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister flattered me when he said that I have an intense power of fascination over other members of the delegation. I do not want that compliment. I think it is an insult to them to say that they acted as a result of my instigation. They acted because I think they shared the feeling at that time that that was not the way in which affairs of state should have been conducted.

Sir, nobody in this House would be mad enough to try and move a motion of censure on the Hon. the Chief Minister. In fact, everyone would like this episode to close gracefully and quietly. Unpleasant things have already happened, and the less said about them the better.

I think the letters which went between him and the Secretary of State make melancholy reading. I felt that the right thing to have done was to stop when the curtain dropped on the 15th. We decided before it dropped that that was the right moment. I still do not believe that anything transpired between the breakdown of the conference and the attempted reopening or the fresh approach 24 hours later which had altered the situation. We had weighed all the pros and cons before we acted. There was nothing new. However, we are asked to take note of these papers and so we will.

We hope that whoever picks up from where the Hon. the Chief Minister left off will be blessed with more fortune, with more goodwill; perhaps also with more united support from a movement which we should spend our time in building. It is not a question of convincing the British people what nice and civilized people we are in Singapore. It is a question of building up a movement which makes it quite obvious to them that unless we are allowed to look after our affairs, we are likely to take some drastic steps to put it into effect against their wishes.

I wish the retiring Hon. Chief Minister a pleasant holiday. Many in this House, in spite of all our disagreements with him, would like to say that he did not spare himself in the conference; he worked hard, he believed in what he was doing and he went all out to do it. Sometimes he was very wrong and I am sorry we had to tell him that he was very wrong. However, all said and done, we wish him bon voyage.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, though I have the pleasure of speaking on this motion, actually there is nothing much for me to say except to confirm my statement yesterday that there were party politics and disunity within the delegation at the London talks. Hon. Members will remember that the Chief Minister had earlier tried to cover this up by saying that the disunity was only behind the scenes, but just now we heard him say that not only were there party politics and disunity after the breakdown of the talks, but that many a time before that happened - at public meetings, student gatherings and even at cocktail parties - the disunity was there, running beneath the surface like an undercurrent and only awaiting the opportunity to come to the surface when party politics would be brought in.

Let me ask the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) this: "Why cannot he let the Chief Minister have a chance to reopen the negotiations on his own initiative?" It was said that the Chief Minister did not keep his word, which he gave at 6 o'clock, to keep confidential his move to reopen the talks when at 10 o'clock the B.B.C. broadcast it. Why should the Member for Tanjong Pagar call a Press conference on the following morning and say, "This is the P.A.P. stand." Was that not party politics? Why should the P.A.P. make clear its stand in London and not in this House? It is true that I told a certain reporter that I was also responsible for the reopening of the talks. I should now like to state the facts.

First, I wish to declare that the meeting with some Labourite Members to discuss the possibility of reopening the talks was not prearranged. Second, it is not correct to say, as the Chief Minister did, that the tea party that the delegation attended on 17th May was informal. There was definitely no meeting on that day. No member of the delegation was officially informed that there was to be a semi-official meeting -

The Chief Minister: At 9 o'clock in the morning.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: No. But after the breakdown of the talks on 16th May, yes, in the afternoon. I chanced to be with the Member for Ulu Bedok (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) and, I think, the Minister for Health (Mr Braga). We were talking when suddenly the Member for Ulu Bedok said, "I think it is nice for us to go to the House of Commons and listen to the debate on the Merdeka talks." It was then about 3 o'clock. I thought that was a good idea and we went. About 20 minutes later, I think, the Chief Minister joined us. We enjoyed the debate. We appreciated the way in which the Rt. Hon. Mr James Griffiths and the Rt. Hon. Mr Aneurin Bevan went all out to press the Secretary of State to reopen the Merdeka talks and they emphasised the point repeatedly that he must not let the door close.

After the debate, the Rt. Hon. Mr Bevan waved a hand at us and gave us a sign that we three - the Chief Minister, the Member for Ulu Bedok and myself - should join him in the lobby. We hurried to meet him. He was joined by the Rt. Hon. Mr Creech Jones and another friend. Then the Chief Minister said that since the Labourite Members might not know much about the talks with the Colonial Office, it was advisable to get all the papers ready and he sent the Member for Ulu Bedok and myself to get them. This we did and then we went into one of the committee rooms to discuss the matter. The Chief Minister put his case very clearly to the three Labourites. Then he had the idea of transferring Singapore from the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office to another Ministry. He said, "Let us put it this way. We can trust the British people, but we cannot trust the Colonial Office." I think it was during this time that one of the Labourites asked, "Do you not think it is better for us to make the initial arrangements to reopen the talks?" But the Chief Minister said, "No, let me do it." Thus, the Chief Minister was responsible for the initial move to reopen the talks. Then he arranged a Press conference, but I did not know when he arranged it. During this conference the Chief Minister repeatedly attacked the Secretary of State, and the Member for Ulu Bedok and I were quite unhappy about it. Because of it, I was forced to speak in Malay to the Chief Minister, "Tolong lah, chakap pendek sikit." I said, in Malay, that since he was going to try and reopen the talks, he should not spoil things by lashing the Secretary of State with his tongue. I had to stop him twice by saying in Malay, "Jangan chakap, tolong lah, jangan chakap." That is the truth.

Then we rushed back to the Chief Minister's flat and had a meeting with the other delegates. My then colleague the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) asked, "How can I face my friends if we reopen the talks? It would be shameful!" I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said, "I strongly reject the idea of reopening the talks." The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), I believe, remarked, "All right, if the Chief Minister thinks it fitting to reopen the talks, he can go ahead on his own initiative." I can assure this House now that the responsibility for reopening the Merdeka talks rested solely on the shoulders of the Chief Minister. I had expected to hear from the Chief Minister after his meeting with Mr Lennox-Boyd, but there was no news from him. I did not know that it was arranged that the tea party should be the occasion for semi-official talks because we did not have a meeting the following morning. We did not know what result the Chief Minister had from his meeting with the Secretary of State. My Party's view was, "Since we have failed in the talks, we are not very keen on going to this send-off party and say there, 'Goodbye, thank you very much.' " So I did not attend the tea-party. But I would like to take this opportunity to say that if I had known that the tea-party would be a semi-official affair, I would have attended it.

Speaking on the motion, I appreciate the spirit in which the Member for Tanjong Pagar puts it - that there is no need to censure the Chief Minister. For myself, I think the Hon. the Chief Minister did the right thing, and if the public want to throw mud at him, I would ask them to throw a little bit at me too.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion here says that "this Assembly takes note of the correspondence" and we also take note.

We stand by what we said to the Hon. the Chief Minister at the last delegate meeting in London - that it was just not done, for us - the representatives of the people of Singapore - to go back and ask for the reopening of the talks after the breakdown. If we were individuals, it would have been different. But we represent the people of Singapore and I think we should know the feelings of the people. However, what was already done could not be undone.

Mr M. P. D. Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had the opportunity of reading these letters exchanged between our Chief Minister and the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I came to the conclusion that our Chief Minister had shown exceptional ability in the negotiations.

We all know, Sir, that the colonial language and the letter written by the Secretary of State for the Colonies is an example of colonial diplomacy. I feel sure, Sir, that although some people of Singapore do not now see the wisdom of the actions of our Chief Minister, the people of Singapore would, in due course, understand the purpose for which the Chief Minister has stood and worked all along.

These letters and the reports of the Mission have clearly indicated to the people of Singapore the honesty and sincerity of a man who has worked for the benefit of the people and who is still prepared to continue his good work for the people. The relentless attacks on him from the Press have shown that in him lies the future of the people of Singapore - a courageous man who is patriotic and who still believes in the sincerity of the people and of his own Mission. I say this, Sir, because I had occasion to be present in the Press conference room on the day the Chief Minister arrived. After half an hour of the Press conference, I heard two European journalists talking to each other. One man was asking the other, "Now that we have got these reports, what shall we do? Shall we praise him or shall we bury him?" That is the attitude of the Press all along against this man who has been working for the freedom of the people of Singapore. That is how the newspapermen looked at the man; and I say this, Sir, at this sitting, that the people of Singapore will always appreciate the hard and sincere work which our Chief Minister has done.

I do hope that his resignation and his absence from the Assembly will be a very short one and that he will come back to us and lead the people of Singapore towards complete freedom and not a half Merdeka.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly takes note of the correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies between the 17th and the 30th May, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc, 2 of 1956, on the subject of reopening the Singapore Constitutional Conference.