CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957

Mr Speaker: The Question then is,

That this Assembly-

(1) takes note of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957, and approves the points on which agreement has been reached; and

(2) approves the stand of the All-Party Delegation in not accepting the condition stipulated in paragraph 30 of the Report.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is all very simple. First we get the whip, now we want the gag; hon. Members are quite tired, I am going to take quite some time on this matter. I cannot treat it in the cursory fashion in which it has been dealt with by the Hon. the Chief Minister, and Members on the Opposition and elsewhere are entitled-

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

The Chief Minister: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Marshall: I would like to go on.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think perhaps the hon. Member has misunderstood the position. I quite agree that Standing Orders sometimes can be very complicated but, in this particular instance, the request, I think, would be that the Assembly continue even till midnight to deal with this item until it is completed. [Interruption] Order. If the motion is not agreed to or there is no assent given that the motion should be moved, the position then would be, of course, that, at the moment of interruption, all business stops and we continue again on Monday. That is the position.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I lost my temper a little this morning and I would like to apologise. I cannot, Sir, imitate the stony silence of the people of Singapore. To my mind, what is happening is a deathblow to democracy in this territory and Cairnhill has a voice unlike the other helpless sections and I intend to make that voice heard. Perhaps I should be a little more courteous. I understand that Julius Caesar, when the bloody hand of Brutus struck, said, 'And you, you Brute' or words to that effect. I am inclined to believe that Shakespeare romanticised, Sir, and that when Julius C�sar felt the knife of his best friend in his own heart, he must have rent the heavens with his cry of death. I consider, Sir, that what is happening today is the destruction of all hope for the establishment of democracy, attraction of goodwill and respect for the democratic process and that we are clearing the arena for what the Member for Tanjong Pagar would describe as a clean, straight fight between the Colonial Office and its fellow travellers on the one hand, the Communists and their fellow travellers on the other hand and the decent people of Singapore, being inarticulate, are between the crossfire of those two camps.

Sir, the people of Singapore, although they are inarticulate, do seem to have second sight and do seem to understand. Once they believed that there was possible a people's merdeka. Their stony silence before and after these merdeka talks and during these merdeka talks, as my friend the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) has pointed out to mean, was an indication that they knew that what they were going to get was a politician's murder-ka-document that murdered what they seek.

Sir, the Lennox-Boyd-Yew Hock Constitution is in spirit and in fact as colonial a document as the Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution although it is an improvement in some aspects. You do not believe me?

Mr Speaker: I was wondering whether the name "Yew Hock" refers to the Chief Minister.

Mr Marshall: Indeed, Sir, he signed the Rendel Commission's Report and that is why we call it the Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member then say the Rendel-Chief Minister Constitution?

Mr Marshall: Chief Ministers come and go, Sir; even this Chief Minister here who hopes to go on forever.

The Chief Minister: Not at all.

Mr Marshall: Sir, it may be that I am crazy but I trust that Members and you, Sir, have some respect for the Times of India, a paper respected in its own great country, a country of many millions, a country of long culture, a country that has known colonialism, a country that has travelled successfully and constitutionally into freedom and a country that bears us no ill-will, What does the Times of India in its leader, Sir, of the 16th of April, 1957, say (heading "Disappointment")? I quote, Sir:

"Although Mr Lim Yew Hock, the leader of the All-Party delegation, has affixed his signature to the draft constitution for Singapore recently negotiated with the British Colonial Secretary, it is difficult to resist the impression that he has done so with many reservations - reservations which are apparently shared by other members of the delegation - and will almost provoke bitter controversy when the constitutional proposals are debated in the Assembly. The so-called constitution which has emerged from amongst painstaking negotiations is a particularly outstanding example of an unsuccessful compromise that will obscure rather than clarify the colony's political future-"

I did not write this, gentlemen:

"-a future that will apparently be a strange compound of self-government and dependence on the British Government of a kind almost indistinguishable from colonialism." [That is putting it politely, Sir,] "...it has nothing to do with the kind of self-government that is the only answer to colonialism."

Sir, this constitution is known by all who can read and understand to be an improvement in part but is, in fact and in essence, a colonial constitution and the improvements are not to be brought into force until an indefinite period when it so pleases His Excellency the colonial official. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister knows full well that what he has got back is a thing that is deformed and a thing of shame. That it why he applies the Whip in a matter which should be beyond party politics.

The delegation has had a wonderful and a unique opportunity for success. The last delegation, blocked a few yards from goal last year, passed the ball to the present Chief Minister, creating a diversion to weaken the opposition. The disclosures of the Fascistic attitude and tactics of the Colonial Office towards Singapore last year earned for the people of Singapore the active sympathy of all Asian nations with considerable repercussions on the Colonial Office. They realised that they could not afford to fail again and they realised that they had to succeed and succeed soon to save their face. Not only in India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Japan but even in China, there was the most heartfelt and active sympathy for the people of Singapore. Let us admit frankly, Sir, to be fair: the Chief Minister improved his position after receiving the ball and improved it magnificently. Whatever we may think, in the context of the long-term welfare of Singapore, of his actions in August and October last year, there is no question whatsoever in my mind - nor should there be in anybody else's - that his actions in August and October improved his position vis-a-vis the Colonial Office to a very considerable extent. The goal was wide open. He knew it and he fumbled and all we get is a corner kick, and why, Sir? Because there has developed in the past few months a fear complex, a fear of merdeka which the Progressives always had in their hearts but which the rest of us did not have - a contagious fear - a fear that took away our faith in our people and in our destiny. Sir, I will say this: I am not above fear and I am not without recognition, nor have I ever been, of the dangers involved in any progress. A man enforced to lie horizontal for 20 years, when you start to make him walk, will fall and bark his shins and break his bones. He needs to learn to walk. He must be encouraged to walk. Sir, in the world of today, fear is not only for those of us in Singapore who are considering the consequences of merdeka but fear is for all the people of the world. Although the Minister for Health (Mr Braga) takes so blithely the repercussions of the hydrogen bomb, most thinking people do have a very real fear that there will be an extermination of the human race as a whole and certainly of human culture of today but we cannot, Sir, survive in any way whatsoever if we are to permit our conduct to be governed by fear. Fear is an inhibitive and a corrosive emotion. It is no basis on which to build your future. Though one should recognise the grounds which indicate danger, one should nevertheless, in my view, have faith in oneself and in the future and this faith the Merdeka Mission lacked. Sir, the Merdeka Mission has returned as loyal subjects of the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd and their cries of merdeka are empty cries.

Now, Sir, I shall come to my specific objections to this deformed thing that we have before us, this Report that is not an agreement, this agreement that is not an acceptance. Sir, my first and foremost objection - and I hope the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) will hear this - is that the agreement gives us much less, I repeat, very much less and I repeat once more, radically less than what was offered the Singapore delegation last May. Now, Sir, unlike the Member for Serangoon, I do not intend to make a statement and leave it alone. I intend to prove it with chapter and verse.

My second objection, Sir, is that this document, if and when it comes into force, makes no change to the essential colonial spirit of our status. We remain colonial subjects. It is a colonial government and we are under the domination of a foreign colonial power and not merely external domination but domination in our every-day life.

My third objection, Sir, is that the date for implementation of this extraordinary constitution is of an indefinite character which suggests that it is never intended to be brought into force. This Assembly is not entrusted, Sir, with the question as to whether the time is ripe to bring it in nor can we petition and get a consent. It must be a colonial official who, in his goodness, must be satisfied that the time is ripe to bring in that constitution and let me repeat that so long as this Government is an efficient extension of the Colonial Office that long will there be no new constitution and no election, for let us recognise, Sir, that by a simple Order in Council, this Government can request their friend the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd to continue their life for ever and ever, amen.

Sir, there are other items of objection to this agreement. There is the insistence of the Colonial Office that we remain under its jurisdiction. It is a petty matter, Sir, when the whole thing is in a mess. Our insistence at the time was, "Look, Great Britain, we want a clean future relationship with you. We want a relationship of goodwill. We want an end to struggle. We want a new chapter in our life, a chapter of partnership and of co-operation. So do not insist on the Colonial Office being the channel of our relationship. You pass your relationship through the sewer of the Colonial Office. It must stink when it gets to this end." But, Sir, when we have the whole thing a stench, what does it matter if it goes through the sewer of the Colonial Office? What we have now, Sir, is not a document that anybody in this House can pretend is one on which the people of Singapore should rest content.

Sir, then we have the comic weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about the banning of subversives, the comic relief which I shall come to, in due course, but they are minor matters. I am in a very queer position there, Sir. I consider that it is the duty of the Singapore Government to make such provision in its own Elections Bill but I also consider that it is most improper for the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd or anybody else outside this territory to tell us how to suck eggs and to make us do it their way - Oxford way of eating eggs, not Cambridge.

Sir, I come now perhaps to the most crucial aspect of this consideration. The Hon. the Chief Minister has very studiously avoided any suggestion that he got more than what was offered last year. He knows darned well that it is not so. But the seconder, the Member for Serangoon, says that we got more than last year. Sir, you will forgive me if I take some time on this aspect and prove to you not merely that we got radically less but we handed over lock, stock and barrel all control over internal security - we who pretend to the status, the powers and the privileges of a self-governing territory! Let us see! Look at, Sir, the debate of 5th March, 1957, columns 1457 and 1458. What did this Assembly ask? Without my presence to spur anybody on, Sir, we asked:

"... from Her Majesty's Government for the people of Singapore the status of a self-governing state with all the rights, powers and privileges thereto appurtenant in all internal affairs.".

That is clear:

"... and the control of trade, commerce and cultural relations in external affairs."

But let us look at this mandate which has been fulfilled to the hilt: "We demand the status of a self-governing state with all the rights, powers and privileges thereto appurtenant in all internal affairs." Let us look, Sir, at the Report produced by the All-Party Conference to this Assembly last month and there it says in the clearest terms:

"When the last talks broke down, the Singapore Mission had been offered by the United Kingdom Government counter proposals to our demands, and these are set out as Annexure L, Pages 67, 68 and 69 of Cmd. Paper 31 of 1956. The Conference's decision is that the All-Party Mission" [this is this present Conference, Sir] "will not accept anything less than what had already been offered by the United Kingdom Government."

Right, what were we offered? Look, Sir, at the document to which this refers and that is Annexure L in Cmd. Paper 31 of 1956 being the Report on the All-Party Mission to London last year and if it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be reading from Annexure L, at page 67. These are the constitutional proposals offered by the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore through their delegates in London on 12th May, 1956 (a year ago):

"(1) Singapore to be known as the State of Singapore."

Granted again.

"(2) The Governor to be replaced by a High Commissioner."

Not agreed and there is, it is suggested, an improvement. All right, we will mark that as an improvement. One up. We will discuss the emptiness of the improvement in due course but let the Member for Serangoon have a little glory.

"(3) The ex officio and nominated Membership of the Legislative Assembly to be abolished."

Same.

"(4) The number of elected Members of the Assembly to be increased to 50."

It is now 51. Mark him up two.

"(5) The ex officio Ministers to be abolished".

Same.

"(6) The portfolio of the Chief Secretary to be transferred to an elected Minister."

Same.

"(7) The portfolio of the Financial Secretary to be transferred to an elected Minister of Finance."

Same.

"(8) Responsibility for the Department at present assigned to the Attorney-General to be transferred to an elected Minister."

Same.

"(9) The Attorney-General to be an official, and to continue to be independent in relation to the initiation, conduct and discontinuance of prosecutions."

Same.

"(10) The Chief Minister instead of, as at present, the Governor to preside at meetings of the Council of Ministers."

Same.

"(11) The High Commissioner to receive copies of Council agenda, papers, minutes and conclusions at the same time as Ministers."

Now, it is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Same.

"(12) Responsibility for External Defence to be vested in the United Kingdom Government." Same.

"(13) Responsibility for External Affairs to be vested in the United Kingdom Government (but see footnote (ii) )."

Same. Now clause (14) and I do ask your attention. It is not the same. It is much less, radically less. Clause (14) reads:

"(14) A Defence and Security Council" [not Internal Security Council, Sir,] "to be established, consisting of the High Commissioner, the Chief Minister, two other representatives of the United Kingdom Government and two other representatives of the Singapore Government" [that is, three on each side]. "The High Commissioner (or in his absence the person exercising the functions of High Commissioner) to be Chairman of the Council."

Same.

"... and to have a casting vote."

No casting vote this time. Chalk that up.

"The High Commissioner and the Chief Minister respectively to nominate the representatives of the United Kingdom and the Singapore Government (and alternates) and both to be enabled in their respective spheres to call in attendance on the Council any persons from whom advice or assistance may be required in the deliberations of the Council."

Now, Sir:

"The Council's functions to be : -

(i) to discuss any matters of common concern...".

Notice the word "discuss", not internal security, but:

"... regarding external affairs and external defence, and to decide in any 'borderline' questions concerning the respective spheres of authority of the United Kingdom and

Singapore Governments;"

Now:

"(ii) to receive and consider regular reports on the internal security situation;"

"To receive and consider". No executive powers of action! We got less. This is what they offered, not what I asked for. This is what Britain offered on 12th May, 1956.

"(iii) to make recommendations...".

Not to take action, Sir!

... to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or to the Government of Singapore, as may be appropriate, on any matters brought before the Council.

The Council to meet regularly...".

Clause (15) reads:

"(15) Should the assistance of troops under United Kingdom command be required... requests for such assistance to be made through the High Commissioner."

That is the same but it is not fair to stop there, Sir, when we come to discuss what is happening and how we handed over - we with our own hands and our own signatures - internal security to an authority outside the authority of the people of Singapore. "Oh, yes, it is going to be simple: there are three Ministers and one Minister from the Federation." The question is a simple one, Sir. The new constitution has no real powers in internal security. Internal security will be in the hands of a Council or a Committee which will work in private and which is not responsible to the House nor to the people. Internal security, Sir, will be outside the jurisdiction of the Singapore Government. What we were offered, Sir, was that they merely discuss and make recommendations about our internal security but, in fairness, that was not all. Let us read on and this is where we got a bit tangled:

"(16) Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to have power by Order in Council-".

Notice, Sir, it is not the gentlemen hidden inside a secret room in Government House where after lunch they sit down with three United Kingdom members, the three Singapore members and the gentleman from the Federation in the secrecy of their board room taking decisions for which they are not responsible and answerable to anybody. No, Sir, it is the United Kingdom Government by Order in Council which can be questioned in their own Parliament. "To have power by Order in Council": it is a public Act.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: And that is better.

Mr Marshall: I will say this a little later on that we asked for and obtained the right that this power should not be exercised except by an affirmative motion in the House of Commons with its complete publicity. I can understand members of the Merdeka Mission squirming with discomfort at having these points pressed home. Let them squirm whether by grin or by act. What have they the power to do, Sir, by Order in Council? Have they the power to interfere in our internal security? This is the power we have, Sir:

"(i) to make provision for the fulfilment of their responsibilities [not in internal affairs, Sir] in relation to external defence and external affairs on the basis of the clause set out in SCT. (56) 9 with such amendments as may be agreed."

Because we have created a terrific noise, Sir, when they defined external defence and external affairs and we said, "You are impinging on internal security." They said, "All right, we will agree to further amendments." You do not have to ask anybody's memory on the subject. It is here: "with such amendments as may be agreed".

"In particular Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to agree to the following: -

(a) the High Commissioner to make Regulations under the Order in Council only after consultation with the Defence and Security Council;

(b) compulsory military or other service not to be required;'.

On this, the present Internal Security Council can do what it likes.

"(c) movable property not to be requisitioned except with the concurrence of the Singapore Government;".

That does not apply now.

"(d) immovable property to be compulsorily acquired only on payment of compensation in accordance with the general local law. No acquisition without consultation with the Singapore Government.

Let me put it to you straight, Sir. The present so-called Internal Security Council can order the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to do just what they please. They are the supreme dictators - or whatever you like to call them - the dictator of dictators.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to object to an hon. Member of this House making an unseemly exhibition of himself but would it not facilitate the hearing of other Members of this Assembly to know what is actually being argued and the points which are being pressed if they were put over more lucidly?

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not unaccustomed in this Assembly to exhibitions by the Member for Tanjong Pagar whereby he seeks to make his points quite by, shall we say, mistaking the point. Now, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar does not understand: I do not seek to impress him but let me say this to you, Sir, and to other Members of the House. I saw the exhibition of the P.A.P. through its unfortunate Treasurer, Sir, who on one evening - I think it was 18th March - said that he fully supported Mr Marshall's demand for elections in August. It was published in the papers and in the next evening the pathetic animal came out with a memorandum saying, "I am sorry. I made an error. My Party changed its mind. We are definitely against elections." When I saw that, Sir, that a man in the P.A.P. has no room for personal integrity of thought but must toe the Party line, I, since then, Sir, although I knew a little of it before, shall certainly never seek to influence the P.A.P. with argument. They can only be influenced the way the Colonial Office is influenced and that is by superior force.

Sir, if I may resume. Now, Sir, we have seen in what the British Government offered us last year that there was one Defence and Security Council - one only, Sir, and one which we screamed about - and the hon. Member strenuously defended the rejection when we came back to this House and reported it and that Defence and Security Council had merely advisory powers in respect of internal security, it could discuss matters of common concern regarding external affairs and external defence and decide any borderline questions. It had to receive and consider regular reports on internal security and it could make recommendations to the Singapore Government and Her Majesty's Government. So its powers were of a purely advisory character, note the nigger in the woodpile (clause 16) which says:

"Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to have power by Order in Council-

(i) to make provision for the fulfilment of their responsibilities in relation to external defence and external affairs.".

What is the objection? There really was none. They said, "You could have external affairs and external defence," but as the Colonial Office always does in these matters, it never shows its ugliness publicly. It hid it in a document it called Annexure 1 [SCT. (56) 9] on page 51 of Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956. It defines external defence and external affairs somewhat very widely so that, in fact, there was an infringement by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, a sort of a reserve power of interference in certain aspects of internal security and that was where we protested and they said, "Right, we will re-word and amend it so as to limit the area of interference by Order in Council."

Now, gentlemen, let me add this very briefly. What did we agree in this Report - this Report that is not supposed to be an agreement? Sir, I think that is what the Hon. the Chief Minister said this was. "This was a Report and not an agreement." I cannot blame the Hon, the Chief Minister. Perhaps he has had no time to read it but if I might draw his attention to the last sentence of paragraph 12 of Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957 which reads:

"The arrangements upon which we have agreed are set out in the following sections of this Report."

So if those sections are not in agreement, perhaps we do not speak the same language or perhaps he is embarrassed by the fact that section 30 is one of the sections that are covered by this sentence:

"The arrangements upon which we have agreed are set out in the following sections of this Report."

Now, Sir, in this agreement that is not an agreement but is a Report, what have we got?

"Her Majesty's Government indicated that it was their intention-"

Unfortunately, they could not carry it out. They always have very good intentions-

"that the new Constitution should confer upon Singapore Ministers full responsibility for maintaining internal law and order and preventing subversion."

And that is what the House asked for:

"... the status of a self-governing state with all the rights, powers and privileges thereto appurtenant in all internal affairs ...".

This was Her Majesty's intention. Paragraph 25 says:

"However, since the internal security and external defence of Singapore are interrelated, all matters relating to the maintenance of law and orderly government would be of interest and concern not only to the Singapore Government but also to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom."

Paragraph 26 reads:

"We accordingly agreed-".

Bravo, the Progressive Party! You got it in! You can dimple on both sides of your cheek, Sir! You deserve it! This is what they wanted and this is what they finally got for us:

"We accordingly agreed that the Constitution should provide for the establishment of a Singapore Internal Security Council. The functions and objects of this Council should be: -

(i) to consult on all questions of policy relating to the maintenance of public safety and public order;".

That is the same as clause (14) (ii) that they offered us last year. "To consult on all questions of policy relating to the maintenance of public safety. . .". Consultation is fair enough. We can learn from everybody. I am prepared to learn even from a Communist, let alone learning from an Imperialist. I am ready to learn. Sir, consultation is perfectly fair but look at the next:

"(ii) to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security;".

That is what the Internal Security Council does: not recommend, not advisory. It has powers to maintain the efficiency not only of the Police Force but of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security. Yes, well done, the Progressive Party! And:

"(iii) to ensure equal access by both Governments to the services of these organs and to all information at their disposal."

That, Sir, is fair enough.

Now, paragraph 27 has this improvement. You remember last year, Sir, we appealed to the British Government to allow the Chairman to be a Malayan appointed by the Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya and the Tunku was then good enough to agree to that. That was rejected but now finally the British Government bowed to this minor concession, not as Chairman, but as an additional member and that unquestionably is an improvement but an improvement to a Council that no longer has the same character. What do they give you? They give you sixpence, they take a hundred quid. You cannot see it, or pretend you cannot see it-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must remind the hon. Member that when he uses the second person "you", he probably means the Delegation and not the Speaker!

Mr Marshall: Thank you, Sir. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask you to turn to paragraph 27 (h) and (i) on page 7 of this Report, and see what else we gave this no longer "Defence and Security" Council, but this blatantly "Internal Security" Council with powers to maintain the efficiency of all organs of government. What further powers did we give it, Sir? It says:

"(h) A vote on any matter within the Council's functions should be regarded as a binding decision, to which immediate effect should be given by the authorities responsible."

Do you know what that means, Sir? It means that the Assembly we will have here, Sir, or anywhere else, will be just a puppet. The government will be run from the board room. It is true there will be three members of the Singapore Government, one from the Federation and three from the United Kingdom, but, Sir, we will be handing ourselves over to dictatorship of a hidden and secret body.

There is to be a Federation Minister; so what? I am very happy that we are to have a Federation Minister to co-operate with us, but is anybody suggesting that he is the angel Gabriel? Or is anybody suggesting that sometimes the Singapore Government would not like to evade its responsibilities for doing something by making that Council do it? Is anybody suggesting that, in the light of what we have seen happen, we are going to be any less colonial in status under that regime, with the secret board-room meeting taking decisions which over-rule anything that happens here? What kind of government are we going to have? Are we going to be puppets with puppet masters in the board-room?

Then, Sir, paragraph 27 (i) says:

"If there is any disagreement as to whether a particular matter was of internal security, and therefore within the functions of the Council, the matter should be discussed and decided by the Council",

and in respect of all these decisions they are binding and have the effect of law.

Finally, paragraph 27 (k) , Sir - "If the Singapore Government failed to meet any requirement...". Supposing the three gentlemen say, "We do not like it and we are sorry that the Federation Minister has agreed with the United Kingdom and we will not co-operate"? What happens? -

"If the Singapore Government failed to meet any requirement placed on them by a decision of the Council, the Chairman of the Council would be empowered so to inform the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and to advise him to make an Order to secure fulfilment of the requirement."

And what does he do? It seems fair enough to advise him, but listen to this - this is British advice -

"The Yang di-Pertuan Negara would then be obliged-"

obliged-

"to make the Order, which would have the force of law in Singapore."

Sir, we will be having our Head of State doing the dirty work for the Colonial Office and taking the blame. Who is responsible? - the Internal Security Council for which we ask. It is not a question, Sir, of whether it is going to be abused or not going to be abused; it means in fact that democracy is dead, that there is a dictatorship of seven behind the scenes to do just what they please, when they please and how they please, and that their will, by a majority of four to three, is law. That is our democracy, Oxford style. [Interruption].

Sir, I am sorry to hold you up; I seem to have mislaid a document. Sir, I ask that I may be permitted to come back to it later if I can find the document from which I seek to read to you.

I would ask the Assembly to note this, Sir, and if I am wrong, I trust that the Hon. the Attorney-General will tell me how I am wrong, because this is a serious question; if I err, let the Assembly have the truth. Sir, not only have we surrendered when this carrot finally reaches the mouth of the donkey, not only have we surrendered our control over internal security to this board of seven dictators, but we are creating a third board to control the new Assembly of Singapore. This is something new, something which I do not think is necessary; but look, Sir, at paragraph 37. What is my objection to these secret boards? It is very simple, Sir. If you divide power in a way that the person exercising it has no responsibility towards the people - you cannot fix him personally with the responsibility, you cannot pin him down and make him answer - then in point of fact the area of his power is completely excluded from the jurisdiction of the Assembly and the people's representatives. In respect of this Internal Security Council, I say to you, Sir, the people of Singapore know that it means that our entire internal security position will be completely outside the control of this Assembly, that it will be in the hands of this group of dictators, and that we can never know their decisions because it is a secret organisation, a secret council.

Let me give you an example, Sir, how these things can happen and how the people of Singapore and their representatives can lose any sense of initiative and self-respect by making somebody else do the dirty work. When I became a "dictator", when we were in office, for about three weeks, Sir, the question arose as to whether we were to renew the Emergency Regulations. Now, Sir, it was part of our platform to review and repeal them so much as was necessary, and at that time there was a very strong movement for complete repeal. Now, Sir, it was part of my duty (the duty of the Chief Secretary, it is true) to investigate the position; and I may have been wrong, but I think I was right, I believed that it was absolutely essential for our way of life that some sort of powers of detention should be retained. Naturally, I was very embarrassed early in my tenure of office to have to meet strong and bitter opposition. And I remember, Sir, that Sir John Nicoll said, "You repeal the Emergency Regulations in the Assembly and your voters will be satisfied. I will then reintroduce them by virtue of my special reserve powers, and we will both be satisfied." Sir, if I were to meet Sir John again, I would apologise to him for being as rude as I was. I thought he was insulting me and the people of Singapore.

After reading this document, Sir, particularly the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about the ban on subversion being an undemocratic ban, I feel that all Sir John did was to think that I was just a normal politician. Sir, that is the kind of thing that will happen again and again - unscrupulous politicians will not take responsibility for necessary acts which may temporarily be unpopular, but will pass the buck to the Internal Security Council, thereby constantly maintaining the sort of tension and the sort of antagonism which we see created the cause for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In addition to it, Sir, as I was pointing out to you, we are to have an InterDepartmental Council, and I would like to read paragraph 37:

"It was clear that this practical division in the handling of external relations,"

external relations-

"together with the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for defence, made it necessary that there should be continuous consultation between the two Governments on the many points at which their interests and responsibilities would touch or overlap. We had agreed upon the establishment of the Internal Security Council, but noted that its competence was limited strictly to matters of internal security."

Why? Last year, there was no necessity for this. Then, we did not ask for an additional council. Why this year? Why, except that they want a further point of control. I read on:

"37. Her Majesty's Government therefore proposed that there should be established some purely consultative-"

but let us see how purely consultative it is-

"- some purely consultative machinery through which the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Singapore should consult upon and discuss all matters or problems affecting the Singapore Government arising from Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for external affairs and defence. The Singapore Delegation indicated that they regarded defence and external affairs (save where the latter had been delegated to Singapore) as being matters entirely within the United Kingdom sphere, for which the Singapore Government could not constitutionally accept any responsibility: they nevertheless recognised the need for some consultative arrangements through which Her Majesty's Government could consult Singapore's interests, or make known any requirements arising from their responsibilities involving action on the part of the Singapore Government.

"38. We therefore agreed to establish, by administrative action... an Inter-Governmental Committee...".

Now, Sir, this is a purely "consultative" organ - you will remember. Sir, paragraph 37 says it is "purely consultative". But the last sentence slipped into paragraph 39 says:

"Except to the extent to which the Council decided that a matter was one of internal security, it would be the duty of the Government of Singapore to give effect to Her Majesty's Government's requirements"

in this Inter-Departmental Committee.

So, Sir, we, the Government of Singapore, are to be under the orders of this Inter-Departmental Committee of a "consultative" nature to give effect to Her Majesty's Government's wishes in the realms of external affairs and external defence. Let us read down, Sir. Paragraph 40 says:

"The Conference further agreed that if the Singapore Government were to fail to carry out their duty to meet such requirements, the procedure mentioned in paragraph 27 (k) "-

and remember the words, Sir? - the Yang di-Pertuan Negara would then be obliged to make an Order on the advice of the Chairman of the Council, on the advice of the British adviser, and this advice of the British adviser he shall be obliged to take-

" the procedure mentioned in paragraph 27 (k) , which relates to the implementation of the Internal Security Council, is applicable in this case also. When the requirement related to a Bill before the Singapore Legislature, which in the view of Her Majesty's Government would prejudice the discharge by Her Majesty's Government of their responsibilities, the Chairman of the Security council would also have the power to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to reserve the Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should then be obliged to do so."

That is the position, Sir. Not even on the advice of this Inter-Departmental Council, Sir, but if in Her Majesty's Government's discretion it is deemed by Her Majesty's Government that a Bill before this Assembly is of a character which prejudices the discharge of Her Majesty's Government's responsibility - that is wide enough - then that Bill must be reserved by our Head of State for Her Majesty's Government to consider, for Her Majesty's Government's pleasure.

Sir, we are nearing the moment of interruption and although I have much more to dwell upon, I feel that it may be appropriate at this juncture to introduce an amendment which Members can consider. I would ask first, Sir, as a matter of information, whether I am correct, as I think I am, in saying that I may, after moving that amendment, proceed after the moment of interruption, Sir?

Mr Speaker: The Member for Cairnhill can indicate the terms of his amendment at the end of his speech before he moves the amendment.

Mr Marshall: Thank you, Sir. The terms of my amendment, Sir, are to leave all the words after "(1) "-I am changing the wording in "(l) "-and to insert the following; that it

"regretfully takes note of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957; and nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution on the basis that all persons qualified by residence for citizenship shall be entitled to vote at the first elections; and".

I leave "(2)" alone, Sir, not because there is any question of a change of mind. To me, it is a statement for which I have some contempt because, first of all, it does not accurately state the facts, and, secondly, I am in favour of a ban on subversives participating in politics. But I am not in favour of Britain interfering by making the provision a part of our constitution.

Sir, I think I would like, in so far as there is time, to make clear one aspect of this question, and to interpose an explanation of what I mean by "nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution on the basis that all persons qualified by residence for citizenship shall be entitled to vote at the first elections". Sir, the new constitution is a colonial constitution. It gives us nothing to crow about, but it does give us an opportunity for a fresh election for a bigger House, and I feel, Sir, that there has been a tremendous maturing of the people politically. I also feel, for myself, Sir, that this House has now, shall we say, expended its utility, and that it is in fact rapidly becoming nothing other than a vested interest which seeks its own perpetuation. I feel, Sir, that however unfortunate and deformed the new constitution is, however much of an evil hunchback, it is better than the existing one because it will give us a greater opportunity in our struggle to end our colonial status. The quicker we get it, the quicker we end it, and that is something to remember. It is patent to the people of Singapore that from this Assembly they can expect nothing more; they can expect nothing more except an effort to perpetuate their sitting here.

The reason given for not holding elections, Sir, is that we have 260,000 citizens, or potential citizens, and that we should wait until these people are given an opportunity to vote. I shall go into somewhat longer detail a little later about the validity of that excuse. But what I do say is that we can do it now if we are sincere, Sir - and this one is really an attempt to resurrect Lazarous. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, a naturalised Malayan, worked with vigour and integrity and ability in assisting the people of Singapore in the administration of their government, Sir, but he cannot know- and he cannot be expected to know- how we feel about this matter of racial domination and racial inferiority. And the honourable gentleman from Tanjong Pagar, who is singing in Oxford accents the dirge of democracy in this House- he is in a particularly fortunate position; and having attained it, he does not have to worry about whether he or his family should ever feel the inferiority that the rest of the people suffer as a result of colonial rule.

But, Sir, let us go back to the question of what can be done. Everybody tell us anxiously, whether it is true or not, they say they are anxious, anxious that 270,000 domiciled aliens should be given immediate citizenship. I say, Sir, I will give it before the new constitution is introduced - I will give it now! Section 42 of the Colony Order in Council - I am sorry, Sir, I am a bit disorganised this afternoon - no, section 43, Sir, says:

"The Elected Members of the Assembly shall be persons qualified for election in accordance with the provisions of this Order"-

that does not apply-

"and elected in the manner provided by, or in pursuance of, any law enacted under this Order or in pursuance of the Singapore Colony (Electoral Provisions) Order in Council, 1954."

So we can make our own laws for election purposes, and, in fact, we have made Law No. 26 of 1954, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, whereby we provide for persons who can vote. Now, Sir, I say that under section 5 of that Ordinance, we have the qualifications for holding elections. Right? Now, we also have the power, if we so want, to disqualify criminals (have we not disqualified the undemocratic gentlemen in the democratic Changi jail?). We have disqualified those who are under sentence of imprisonment, are of unsound mind, corrupt, etc. But under section 5, Sir, we can even make infants elected if we so like. What is there, then, to prevent us from amending section 5? We can do it in two days without a Certificate of Urgency - amending section 5 to say "includes all persons domiciled in Singapore or resident in Singapore for the past 10 years"; for the first elections only - I do not ask that they be made permanent; but the idea is that, for the first elections, we want to give the vote to these people. We do not want colonial rule (nobody likes that), but we have got to suffer it for two years, may be three, four, or more, because we must have these alien Chinese on the list of voters. You do not hope for Lennox-Boyd to put them on; put them on here, now! I will support it. Why cannot we amend section 5 (1) and say "all persons resident in Singapore for the past 10 years"? Right, it takes you two days to pass that. Then, oh, how long does it take to get them on the electoral roll? You see, Sir, those who have goodwill can get things done quickly, but those who pretend, will find a lot of objection. One of the objections is: How long will it take to get them on the electoral roll? Six weeks, I say, because, gentlemen, nobody has got to go and register! The beauty of this suggestion is that we have the Identity Card system - bless the Identity Card system; we have the Identity Card system and all the names are registered. Let the Chief Secretary correct me - he has got all the information and it should not take more than six weeks to pick out everybody who has 10 years' residence in Singapore. So it takes you six weeks to get your electoral roll out after two days, and that makes 44 days. Let us imagine the miracle taking place - I always have faith in miracles, Sir! After all -[Interruption]- you laugh, but did not the Chief Minister yesterday accept our motions on corruption? Is he not perhaps going to accept the amendment to the Clerical Workers Bill that we should legalise strikes? Amen to that. Sir, why should not we believe in miracles? I believe in miracles; I am hoping that this effort to resuscitate Lazarous will be successful.

Sir, I wish to go back to the people of Singapore. In any division in Singapore, I am prepared to stand against the gentleman who has the majority of votes, and I say to him: I will go to his constituency if he will go back to his constituency, and I will challenge him there-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Accepted!

Mr Speaker: Order. Does the Member for Cairnhill consider this really relevant?

Mr Marshall: I heard him say, Sir, that he accepted it.

Mr Speaker: I rule it as irrelevant.

Mr Marshall: Sir, I will say that we can amend this Elections Ordinance, and provide for domiciled aliens to be on the electoral roll in six weeks. We can have it open for objections for another six weeks, and we can be ready in three months. It is to be remembered that though Mr Lennox-Boyd promised us a State of Singapore last year, we are now having a new constitution by Order in Council; so we do not have to worry about going to Parliament - we are remaining a colony by Order in Council, and an Order in Council can easily be prepared within three months. There is no need of our worrying about an amendment to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act for the simple reason that this Bill is not providing immediately for aliens to become citizens - it is providing to give them the right to vote at the first elections. And in due course - as the Chief Minister said, it takes time to amend the Nationality Status Act, and it takes time to open the registration bureau, it takes time to register 230,000 people and we should have at least a year - (and I myself agree they should have two years) - they can register, after having voted for the new Assembly and the new constitution, as citizens of a new State instead of registering as citizens of this still Colony of Singapore. Now, Sir, this will be objected to - I shall have to answer objections, since I am the mover of an amendment and I have no right of reply - it will be objected that those aliens will have to take the oath of allegiance. That is the only objection of some validity which I can foresee, and the answer is very simply this: if a man is evil-minded, if his loyalty is elsewhere, no oath of allegiance can make him change. But I do not believe that there are many of those people among the 270,000 whom we seek to attract as our citizens. I know them and I say I believe that they are men of stability, men of sincerity, that they are loyal to this land; and I cannot envisage any real danger in giving them the right to vote in the first elections before they can take out citizenship papers, the right to vote for the first elections without taking out any oaths, without registering themselves, just by virtue of the fact that they have been 10 years in Singapore in accordance with their Identity Card registration form which indicates their residence. Sir, it is simplicity itself, just as it is simplicity itself whereby the Singapore Delegation has destroyed and suspended merdeka by that paragraph 27. I say it is simplicity itself to restore life into this constitution and still give an opportunity to this nascent democracy to take form, by making it possible for all these people to vote, and to vote now.

3.45 p.m.