CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member for Cairnhill please continue?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will say this. Last year, I frankly did not consider that we had failed. We were seeking, and seeking with sincerity, a tremendous advance, something that was in the nature of a Holy Grail for us. Sir, a setback and a failure at the first trial is not a failure. I do not consider that we failed. We had bulldozed our way to a very short distance of the goal. The ball was still in motion; the position, Sir, was excellent; and the prospects were perfect. But today, Sir, today I consider I had failed, and this is my failure: This Report before the House, the subject of the motion, this is my failure, because you cannot go back on what they have signed away, not at the moment, not until this abortion is in force and a new people, the new people, the new representatives of Singapore, have the opportunity themselves to undo what the Mission has done, if in fact it is not too late. I myself fear this, Sir: I fear that my motion will be lost. I have seen, and I intend to prove to this Assembly, the lack of enthusiasm on the part of Government for an early election. I believe that it will continue or seek to continue in office until the full length of its legal term in April 1959. I believe it will seek to continue in office thereafter by Order in Council of the Colonial Office. And I believe that, thereby, the seeds of democracy which we sought to nurture will wither and die, and that the alternative, an alternative that bodes ill for Singapore, will then be the only means of change. Sir, I did not accept what I was given and I was not sorry; I did not accept what we were given because I believed that more was necessary and more could be obtained. I have faith in the men of Singapore today.

Sir, if, on the other hand, it is true that the reason given for the delay in new elections is to give a vote to those new citizens - I shall deal with the question tomorrow - we can achieve that now. And I say we should achieve that now, by simply amending the Singapore Legislative Assembly Ordinance, that we could quite easily hold elections in July. In the new Assembly at least we will have a fresh outlook, at least we can say that the people have put in democratically elected persons who remain in office for serving the people and not merely for purposes of holding power. It can be done; it can be done today. It can be done and it should be done. If we want to maintain and attract respect for democratic processes, which means that the people have their own form of government, which should be their government, one which they are prepared to accept - we can only do that by giving them an opportunity for an election. Otherwise, Sir, if we refuse them this, we refuse them an improvement in their colonial status which the new constitution does give. Although it is a colonial constitution, it does improve the conditions of struggle of the people, their opportunity to make their voice heard. If we refuse this amendment, it means that we intend to deprive them of the opportunity to have those better conditions now, and that we intend to impose our desire to continue sitting in this Assembly and holding office for the people of Singapore irrespective of their welfare and wishes. If we do that, we deal a mortal blow to any hope of respect for democratic processes.

Now, Sir, I have pointed out that my main argument, my main objection, to this constitution was that we will be handing over internal security to a body outside the control of and not responsible to the people of Singapore. To that extent, Sir, it is a farce to speak about self-government with all powers and privileges. In fact, this is a radical alteration of a greatly prejudicial character to the one Britain offered us last year. And in addition to this, we now have a so-called Consultative Inter-Departmental Council which will have a right to order our Head of State to enforce its will, and a High Commissioner who will have power to order and to enforce his will in respect of matters which they deem to be within their realm of external affairs.

Now, the second objection of ours which I raised was that this was an essentially colonial constitution. Sir, our original hopes were for a status of freedom which would have the respect of our fellow human beings. Sir, last year, we said in our memorandum to the British Government - and this the P.A.P. also signed - on page 22 we said that we have every right to be as independent as any other member of the Commonwealth in spite of our area and population. We see paragraph 4 at page 22 and then, Sir, at page 47 - on which also the P.A.P. has now changed its views and said we are too small to be independent - this is what we said: (This was delivered to the British Government on 1st May, 1956):

"(3) We are firmly convinced that the people of Singapore have matured to a point where it is essential for their healthy growth that they should be free to shape their destiny. Our geographical position and racial content offer an inspiring challenge and unique opportunity to make our contribution to the concept of inter-racial amity and cooperation and the growth of democratic institutions. We can be adequate to our opportunities only if we are free of controls, however well meant, which prevent us from finding our feet through the normal process of trial and error with all the risks inherent in living."

We can even now -

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.

Remaining items on the Order Paper read, and set down for tomorrow.