CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question (26th April, 1957),

"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."-(The Chief Minister).

Question again proposed.

Mr D. S. Marshall (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the Government opposes the amendment which seeks to call for the immediate implementation of this unfortunate new constitution on the basis of granting the right to vote to all those who would be entitled to citizenship by virtue of residence under the constitution. I was also informed by the Secretary of the P.A.P., the Member for Tanjong Pagar, that the P.A.P. opposes the amendment. Sir, this House has been away from its electorate for more than two years. As a result of a statement of mine yesterday, I understand from the Press that there is now a possibility of early by-elections in Cairnhill and in Tanjong Pagar, by-elections to be fought on the simple issue as to whether the people desire this constitution and its implementation on the date indicated by the motion, or whether they prefer my amendment. Sir, I would ask the Chief Minister, particularly as his seat is not in jeopardy, nor are any of the Government seats in jeopardy - they can listen in comfort by the radio - whether he would give this House -

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

The Chief Minister: A point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Marshall: If I may finish the question, certainly, Sir. I would ask the Chief Minister whether he would permit the adjournment of the voting - not necessarily of the debate, because others should naturally be heard - on the amendment until after the results of the by-elections. I do not ask this House to accept the results of the by-elections, but they can take them into consideration when voting. I would ask the Chief Minister whether he is prepared to do that, Sir,I am sitting down to permit a reply, Sir, not to -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chief Minister need not, of course, reply at this stage if he does not choose to. He will, I presume, reply when he replies to the whole debate.

Mr Marshall: I am sorry, Sir; it might have changed the character of the debate. It would not require any delay in working out the Order in Council, Sir. My amendment calls for an earlier implementation of this constitution. Sir, I will not deal further with it.

Yesterday, Sir, I was on the subject of my main disagreement with this constitution because of paragraph 26 (ii) of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April, 1957. It deprives the people of Singapore and their elected representatives of control over internal security matters, since it gives the Internal Security Council the functions and the powers "to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security". And paragraphs 27 (h), (i) and (k), which compel the Singapore Government to accept the decision of this seven-man Council, Sir. Now, what is exactly the difference, I was asked, and perhaps I have not made it clear, so I will give two or three examples. Sir, if we had accepted last year's constitution, there would have been only an Advisory Defence and Security Council. There was nothing wrong with that. As I have repeatedly said, I am willing to learn from everybody and consult with everybody, but it was reserved to Her Majesty in Council to make powers by Order in Council in matters of external affairs and external defence, but with a definition which impinged on internal security to some extent. Sir, what is the position today? As you say, we give away completely internal security to this Council which is not responsible to the people's elected representatives.

Take, for example, Sir, supposing under last year's constitution the Assembly decides to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into allegations of brutal assaults by police officers on citizens. Now under last year's constitution, Sir, there can be no doubt whatsoever but that the Defence and Security Council could only protest to the Singapore Government and advise against such inadvisable action which would weaken the morale of the police force; but it could not take any action, nor could Her Majesty in Council take any action, because quite obviously an inquiry into allegations of police brutality is not external affairs or external defence. But what about the new constitution that is proposed to come into force in the never never? Suppose under the new constitution the Assembly says it wants an inquiry into police brutality. "Ah," says somebody (whoever it may be), "we do not like it." Then it goes to the Internal Security Council, and this Council has three British members on it who would naturally avoid any suggestion of bringing this out into the open, and they have also - this is the improvement in the machinery - the Minister for the Federation. But let us assume that the Minister for the Federation - and it is fair to assume that, seeing that there is no such inquiry in the Federation and perhaps the Federation would not like to start that kind of a smell - decides to support the British representatives. Then a perfectly legitimate desire of the people to investigate brutality by the police is blocked - even that little thing is taken out.

Supposing, Sir, we want to amend the Banishment Ordinance. Under the constitution last year the Defence and Security Council could say to the Singapore Government: "It is very unwise of you to revise this Ordinance even though it might be 42 years old. It is very unwise." But it could not do more. Her Majesty in Council could not very well refuse us our amendment because it has no power in those matters in blocking legislation. This is purely an internal matter. But under the new constitution you go ahead and ask for a revision of the Banishment Ordinance, and the police communicate with the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner will call in the Internal Security Council and they say, "Tut, tut, tut, tut, a lot of gangsters, you know. It is better not to touch this Banishment Ordinance." Well, then, we depend on the Minister for the Federation. But the Federation, Sir, has the same Banishment Ordinance as ourselves and is not anxious to improve it. So can you expect the Minister for the Federation to seek to be more progressive in Singapore than he is in the Federation? So we find that a perfectly legitimate desire on the part of the people of Singapore, who have a very large proportion of aliens, blocked on this simple matter.

You see the differences, Sir? You see how much we have given away under the new constitution as compared to the old? Let us take another one, much nearer home, and of which so much is being made by the P.A.P. Supposing the new Assembly under last year's constitution were to move a motion to say, "Let us release the Member for Bukit Timah. He has had enough of a holiday in the democratic Changi jail, and let us release Devan Nair." Of course, the Defence and Security Council would say, quite naturally, "Look here, boys, you know you are releasing two men who are confirmed subversives." But they could not do anything. Her Majesty in Council cannot interfere because, quite patently, even under their definition this is not a matter of external affairs and external defence. But under the new constitution this will come immediately before the Internal Security Council. And do you think the Federation Minister, for example, is going to vote in support of the Members here for release of subversives when that is not happening in the Federation? You see how much we have given away, Sir. We had more than two-thirds of internal security in our hands under the constitution which we were offered - not that we were satisfied with it - but it was offered by the British Government last year in Annexure L. Today we have given away the whole control of internal security. I say to you that these examples indicate that to suggest that the new constitution provides for the status of a self-governing State, with all the rights, privileges and powers thereto appurtenant in internal affairs is wholly inaccurate, Sir, entirely false. What in fact the new constitution provides for when it comes into effect is the creation of a colonial State without the ultimate control in every matter connected with internal affairs. That is what you have.

Sir, my second objection indicated to you yesterday is that it is essentially a colonial constitution and I shall mention briefly why. I have already indicated to you, Sir, that internal security is now completely out of our hands. I would also point out that the Colonial Office is still in charge of this colony under the present Rendel-Yew Hock Constitution and under the new Lennox-Boyd-Yew Hock Constitution. A symbol of this colonial position as compared to last year, when they were prepared to offer us more, is that this year the new constitution will be by Order in Council and not by Act of Parliament, Sir, and if I might refer you to page 14, paragraph 52 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference of this year, which says:

"The Constitution itself would be contained in an Order of Her Majesty in Council, supplemented by Royal Instructions."

But what did they offer us last year, Sir? If I might refer you to last year's Report, Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956 at page 69, at the bottom:

"In implementation of the undertakings embodied in this constitution Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce a State of Singapore Bill into Parliament to provide for the surrender of powers to legislate by Order in Council (or otherwise) under the British Settlements Acts."

So we were at least offered some sort of an Act last year by the British.

Now, Sir, as regards the date. Sir, why should I bother about the date if, in fact, the constitution is a bad one? Why should I worry if it comes into force? Why should I want for Singapore a tiga suku busoh merdeka? That is a fair question, and I think the answer is a very simple one, Sir. The people of Singapore, through the hands of their representatives, have now handed themselves, bound and gagged, into the power of the Colonial Office. This Assembly is committed - I know the Chief Minister does not mind being committed and changing his mind - but this Assembly through its Merdeka Mission has committed itself to this constitution. Nothing more can be expected from this Assembly. I think that is fair enough. The new constitution, if it is brought into force, and the quicker it is brought into force, then the quicker it can be destroyed. It will have 51 Members as against our 25 now. It will have completely newly elected people more in touch with the people of Singapore, and they at least will not be bound - they are now bound by the action of their colleagues. They at least can say, "No, we do not want this horrible fate you have given us. Our predecessors have tied us to it, but please, we would like to renegotiate, and renegotiate forthwith." I thought. Sir, of moving a motion in this Assembly to reject it completely, but where would I get? All the Parties are in it. At least I am hoping that the Parties will agree to the early implementation so that we can get on with the job of cleaning up the mess that they have made. That is why I am worried about the date. Sir, I said what did we ask for by way of date last year and what was agreed, because the Chief Minister gave an assurance to this House he would accept nothing less than what was offered last year, and in fact it was the scandalous rumour-mongers who suggested he would. If you will look, Sir, at Annexure H of Command Paper 31 of 1956, at page 50:

"Though our draft Independence Act does not specifically provide for the citizenship proposals incorporated in our original memorandum nor set out a date, we wish it to be clear that we consider April 1957, two years after the coming into force of the Rendel Constitution, would be an appropriate date for the inauguration of the new constitution. Furthermore, the constitution, which must necessarily follow any lndependence Act, should provide for citizenship rights in accordance with the proposals incorporated in our original memorandum SCT. (56) 5 and agreed to by all Parties."

We asked for April 1957, and the Mission knows - I think it was made public that the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies did suggest informally that perhaps if we were successful, we should try and keep in step with the Federation and make it August, and the delegation was generally of the view, as an act of courtesy and goodwill towards our sister territory, that it was quite prepared to accept August 1957 for our new constitution.

Sir, after I resigned, and as a result of some very unpleasant rumours that were going round, I had an interview with the Chief Minister and I wrote him a letter on the 21st of June, 1956, somewhat prophetic in character. However, I shall spare him from reading it completely. It was written, Sir, specifically for such an unhappy occasion as this and with the intent that it might be published. I shall read to you, Sir, only a portion and if the Chief Minister wishes to correct anything that might be inaccurate, I shall pass him a copy. I said in the third paragraph:

"I was glad to hear your repeated and earnest assurance that there was no question of your waiting till next year for reopening of the Merdeka talks and that you were at one with me in visualising the urgency of early reopening of the Constitutional Conference. I understood you to say that in July you will be having informal discussions with the Colonial Secretary and not later than December or January next there will be a full mission. I think it unwise to wait as late as December or January, nor do I see it necessary. It seems to me that after your July talks September can be the date on which the conference can be resumed. However, the question of tactics is not one in which I seek to interfere, so long as it does not assume a vital character which would destroy or gravely prejudice our Party's movement and the country's welfare."

I came back, Sir, from a four-month trip abroad made mainly in order to leave the Government a free hand and not to seem to be interfering, and in order to enable it to gain the confidence of the Colonial Office, which seems to treat me as a wild animal. When I came back, certain events transpired, and as a result of a special conference convened of the General Council of the Labour Front, the Chief Minister made a statement in this House. The statement, Sir, is in our Hansard of the 5th of November, 1956, at col. 421, and I quote:

"I am therefore not yet in a position to name a definite date for the resumption of talks, but this Government has decided that if the talks are successful the new constitution should come into being in August next year, with fresh elections. The new constitution should come into being in August next year with fresh elections."

I am not repeating it, Sir. He actually repeated that phrase twice.

"This is in reply to the accusation of our opponents that this Government is anxious to remain in office."

Sir, I followed that statement of his with a question so that there should be no misunderstanding - to me it is a matter of some vital importance - and on the same column, Sir, I asked:

"If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand the Chief Minister to say that it is the firm intention of the Government to seek full and fresh elections, if the constitutional talks are successful, not later than August next, irrespective of the date of the talks?"

To this, the Chief Minister replied:

"Sir, the hon. Member understands aright.'

That is clear enough - a clear and formal undertaking to this House that if the talks were successful and agreement was reached, there would be elections not later than August of this year, irrespective of the time when the talks were being held.

Sir, despite this unequivocal promise, there were still ugly rumours abroad, and on the 9th of January, 1957, I asked a further question, col. 1205:

"If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that both sides of the House and the country are happy and relieved to learn of the bright prospects for merdeka; but will the Chief Minister inform us of the exact date - I think it has never been made known to the House - for the conference to be held, and reassure us that the holding of fresh elections in August 1957 is not only a possibility but will, in fact, if the talks are successful, take place?

The Chief Minister, in reply, said:

"The talks will reopen on the 11th of March, which I understand is the Ides of March. As far as the election goes, the Government is committed to holding elections in August this year." "committed", Sir, is a big word. It is a firm undertaking and it means that irrespective of the Opposition's attitude, this is Government's commitment and this is what is going to happen; or if Government fails to carry it out, then it will resign.

Sir, on the 14th of February, 1957, two months ago, in his office at about 6.30 p.m. on this subject too, I drew his attention again to certain rumours and he said to me, "Everything is in the bag. The Colonial Office is resigned to August, but it says that it might be necessary to have two or three weeks more for the new Act." I said that was all right with me - early August or September we have waited. That was the 14th of February, Sir, whilst I was a member of the constitutional conference. No question of postponement at all, no question of postponement right through till after the calling of this Assembly which I learned of on my return. Sir, if Lennox-Boyd is resigned to August but might need early September, the point is very simple. Since there is no Act of Parliament necessary - in fact, we can have it at any time, we can have it in July - the question of giving the status to our citizens is a matter that can follow afterwards. It is very interesting now, Sir, to know what he said on the 5th of March, 1957, despite his firm committal of the Government. I am reading from Hansard of the 5th of March, col. 1459, the Chief Minister's speech:

"It was felt that the people affected should enjoy these rights and exercise their votes in the choice of a new Government for the State of Singapore. To achieve this, the conference fully realised that this would mean that it would be impossible for the general elections to take place in August this year to which the Government is committed. The British Nationality Act will require an amendment by the British Parliament. Citizenship laws will have to be introduced in Singapore. A reasonable length of time of, say, one year should be given to persons affected to make application if we really mean them to enjoy these rights. New electoral rolls will have to be prepared under the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. All these take time."

And he speaks truthfully.

"I told the All-Party Conference that I did not wish to influence them on this matter-"

Or that he was committed to August, and his Government was committed to August, he did not wish to influence the All-Party Conference in this matter-

"as I did not wish it to be said that the Government was seeking a way out of its promise to hold elections in August this year. In view of the great importance of the matter, the All-Party Conference felt that the All-Party Mission should seek the views of this Assembly and be guided accordingly. I would therefore ask hon. Members to express their views to guide us on the line to take with the Colonial Office on our citizenship proposals. The Government does not intend to ignore its commitments, but is prepared to listen to the views and advice of hon. Members."

But there was no substantive motion before the House on which hon. Members could give their views. "The Government does not intend to ignore its commitments" means Government either fulfils its promise or gets out if it cannot. Sir, we have a story more than 2,000 years ago of a man called Pontius Pilate who was committed to do justice by the State of Rome in a land called Jerusalem. He too washed his hands and said to the people, "I am committed to doing things but let your will be done."

Sir, we have here a Government committed to a course of action which they very readily surrendered. Now, Sir, let us look at column 1461:

"If the concensus of view is for citizenship rights to be introduced ahead of the new Constitution, then the responsibility for delaying the general elections should rest with this Assembly, and the Government should not be blamed for postponing it. Under these circumstances, the date of coming into force of the new Constitution will have to be synchronised with the date of the general elections."

That is putting very neatly and ambiguously the truth that if you want this, you will have to postpone merdeka, or at least what we thought was merdeka, now.

Then last of all. Sir, he said at column 1487:

"After that will come the preparation of the electoral rolls. But before these can be prepared, the delimitation of boundaries has to be considered. In this, I think we would like to have an all-party committee on the job as soon as possible." That is rather interesting because the Chief Minister knows and Party leaders know that there is a committee on delimitation of boundaries, that the committee has sat, Sir, and the committee has made its report for 51 divisions. Now, why is it necessary to have a new committee with members of the different Parties sitting on it?

Sir, we are told that there is suddenly heartburning desire on the part of all Parties to see that the 270,000 domiciled aliens should get citizenship and should vote. First, let us look at the principle. Even if it is true for a moment, Sir, the principle enunciated is this and it is a very communal principle too, that 1,200,000 of the population of Singapore should not enjoy any improvement in their constitutional status for an indefinite period until a minority has achieved a right to vote it is a sort of dog-in-the-manger attitude: 'Whilst I cannot get it, you will not get it.' But, Sir, let us look at the Rendel Constitution. Did not the Rendel Constitution, which did not give the citizenship rights to our Chinese domiciled aliens, benefit them by giving an opportunity to their fellow human beings (the people of Singapore) to make their voice heard? Would not the new constitution with its improvements of some kind be also to the advantage of those who have not got the right to vote today? Why should we all be deprived of these improvements for an indefinite period? "Because they must have the honour and the privilege of being the first to vote," but, Sir, it is very interesting to see this sudden earnest desire on the part of the Parties concerned to give the citizenship vote or rights to these domiciled aliens. I think you remember, Sir, that as early as I think June of 1955, some two years ago, there were all-community meetings which I called at which I sought to obtain agreement on the need to grant citizenship rights to our domiciled aliens but U.M.N.O. and the P.A.P. strenuously resisted on the ground that I would be creating two types of citizens: one which was a British subject with a right to vote, and one a Singapore citizen with a right to vote but an inferior citizen carrying no national status. That was blocked. We were afraid that if we passed it and sacrificed U.M.N.O.'s part in the Coalition we would be vetoed by His Excellency the Governor. We went on, Sir, to see Mr Lennox-Boyd in August 1955 on the subject. We pleaded with him then. We went in December, Sir, to plead with him on the subject and I think it is pertinent to read a passage as to how this House took those citizenship proposals which it is now suggested are so vital. I am reading, Sir, from the proceedings of 8th February, 1956, at column 1419:

"Mr Lim Choon Mong asked the Chief Minister if he will state how far the Government has progressed towards the definition of a Singapore citizen; and whether he will make a statement.

The Chief Minister: Sir, my hon. Friend is aware that a Bill has been drafted embodying the views of the Labour Front Members of the Government on this question of granting citizenship rights to our domiciled non-British communities."

Then, Sir, I read from column 1441. This is a statement, Sir, by me on 8th February, 1956, as regards our talk in London:

"An important matter that was raised during the talks concerned the question of citizenship for Singapore, it was represented by me and some of my colleagues to the Secretary of State that, in the light of the comments he made in Singapore, it was vital that we should know whether the Citizenship Bill which the Labour Front Ministers had prepared, of which he was given a copy, would, if passed, be disallowed under the provisions of the Royal Letters of Instruction...

My friend and colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat) made it clear that he opposed the Bill, that his colleagues and considerable sections of the population drawn along racial lines were opposed to the question of two types of citizenship - one, a Singapore citizen, and the other a British national. In the course of the discussion that ensued, Sir, it was made quite clear by my hon. Friend on his own behalf and on behalf of U.M.N.O., and he assured me that we would have the support of the people he had in mind who objected to the Citizenship Bill, that if at the constitutional conference in April Singapore did achieve the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth and could then create a single Singapore citizenship, he and his colleagues would fully support a Bill to provide for a single Singapore citizenship, comprising all true Malayans, both the British subjects domiciled in Singapore and the long domiciled aliens in Singapore, subject only to the conditions of an oath of loyalty and an oath abjuring any other national loyalty. Sir, in these circumstances, and particularly realising during the course of the discussion that I was placing the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a very invidious position of indicating whether he would waive in advance the rights of Her Majesty in Council in respect of legislation coming under the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Royal Letters of Instruction, and rather than embark upon a Bill which would divide Singapore, I decided that it would be preferable to wait for a matter of six months until the results of the constitutional conference were known...".

Now, Sir, we have it there that these citizenship proposals were already in a draft Bill, that the Bill had been handed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) was aware of its contents, as in fact he was (he had a copy) and yet it was objected to. We failed at the constitutional talks and we could not create a single citizenship but nobody ever raised thereafter the question of granting citizenship rights to these people. Now, it is said that we must give them these rights before we hold elections but what is this citizenship we are offering them? Is it the citizenship that was rejected by U.M.N.O. and P.A.P. in 1955? What is this citizenship? Not a word about it by the Chief Minister in explanation! Is it, in fact, to give Singapore two types of subjects: one, a British subject with a right to vote, and one, a Singapore citizen with a right to vole which was what was intended by the last one because we could not compel the British Government as we were a colony to give us any real dominion status? There is no answer to that. Sir - no clarification at all - but it is now known in this document, Sir, the report at page 15 in paragraphs 53 and 54 that our delegation has asked for the postponement of the implementation of this new constitution and it says:

"54. It was the view of the Singapore Delegation that elections under the extended franchise which would result from their citizenship proposals set forth in paragraph 50 must precede the coming into force of the new Constitution. We therefore agreed that an exact date for the introduction of the new Constitution could not be determined... It was agreed that the date should be fixed by the Governor after he was satisfied, after considering an address from the Legislative Assembly, that a reasonable period for the registration, as provided in paragraph 50 of this Report, of persons eligible for Singapore citizenship had elapsed." Now, let us see what it means. It means that not all the organisation of the Colonial Office and not all the organisation of the Singapore Government could ascertain what was the period necessary to give an opportunity for registration. Do you believe this, Sir? Do you really believe that it is beyond the powers and abilities of the Members of our Government and their staff and of the Colonial Office and its staff to assess, with reasonable accuracy, how long it would take for this period to elapse of giving an opportunity to the people to register themselves? I do not believe it, Sir. Then look at this other aspect of it and see how this disbelief is confirmed. The period of implementation is not entrusted to this Assembly. We who want and who asked for this postponement to give the rights to our people to vote are not entrusted with saying when they are to have this full opportunity. All we can do is to present a humble address to His Excellency the Governor and he must be satisfied in his discretion that, in fact, such period has come. Now, Sir, why? Is this Assembly afraid of itself? Is the delegation afraid that it might be stampeded into an earlier date by public demand? The delegation insults the Assembly by refusing us even a sense of reasonableness and justice in implementing this provision but refers to trust a colonial official. This is how the Assembly and the people of Singapore are treated by our delegation! So now we have it: it is agreed by all Parties that it is vital that we should have no improvements in our status until there is a new election. But, Sir, there are two ways of looking at it. One way would have been to implement the new constitution since they are so satisfied with it themselves rightaway. They know full well, according to the Chief Minister in his Press interview, he said 18 months for implementation but, I think, and time will prove me right, that it will take two years before a full opportunity is given for these people to vote. We could have had, Sir, the new constitution implemented rightaway say, in July, for two years and therefore we could have the new electorate so that they are deprived of nothing but it is objected that nobody wants to stand for election for two years. Well now, Sir, I have made this other suggestion which is now contained in the amendment I intend to move and let me clarify it. We have an identity card register in Singapore and all those who registered ten years ago or more can be easily traced. I, for example, hold an identity card of 1946, I think. [Interruption] I am going to have a look at it. Yes, 1948. Well, Sir, that gives us nine years. We have a register indicating who were the people resident in Singapore nine years ago. There will be nothing easier than to take from that register and transfer to the electoral roll the names of the persons who are not on the electoral roll but who are still in Singapore. It is a matter of a few days' work. And so if you want to give these domiciled aliens the right to vote at the first election, if you really have faith in this new constitution and if you really want a new election and do not want to stay in office, Sir, we can amend ourselves our own Election Ordinance in order to provide that those on the identity card register in 1948 shall be eligible to vote at the first election. I say first election only because after that it is, I think, proper that they should take out citizenship papers in accordance with the provisions of the constitution but at least they will be given the right to vote at that first election.

Sir, I think - at least it is my view - that on this amendment, there will be many excuses for attacking it, excuses which are not reasons at all, for reasons which will not be made obvious to this House but which this House must try to understand between the lines. Basically, the reasons are fear and political manoeuvring but principally a fear and lack of faith in the people of Singapore and in the power of democracy to maintain itself and to attract loyalty without Machiavelian manoeuvres.

Sir, the next objection - the last one I indicated - is the question of the Head of State. Last year, we provided, Sir, in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956, at Annexure G, page 43:

"The Representative of Her Majesty in Singapore shall be a Governor-General to be appointed for a period of 5 years by Her Majesty on the advice of the Government of Singapore."

Now, that is the important part, gentlemen: "on the advice of the Government of Singapore", and I think you have it repeated here. The intention, Sir, was to have a person acceptable to all of us who could rouse and coalesce a common loyalty amongst the various races. This year's mandate, Sir, is to be found in the Report of the All-Party Conference at page 3 (Sessional Paper No. Misc. 1 of 1957):

"Her Majesty's Representative shall be a Malayan...".

And also in the debate on 5th March in column 1458 in which the Chief Minister said:

"We are pressing for a Malayan Governor-General...".

Now, Sir, what has been agreed? If you look at the present Report before you, Sir, at pages 4, 5, 7 and 10, you will find at page 4:

". . . that the office of Governor should be abolished, and that a Malayan-born personage should be appointed to act as the Queen's representative in Singapore...".

Now, Sir, in paragraph 17 (ii), it says:

"The Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be appointed by the Queen on the advice of Her Majesty's Government . . . Her Majesty's Government would . . . consult the Singapore Government concerning the individual to be appointed, who should be Malayan born."

Now, there is a vast difference between "acting on the advice" and "acting on the advice after consultation with". We have had all this thrashed out and you know the trouble we had in August 1955. In essence, it means that only Her Majesty's Government - that is to say, the British Government: in fact, the Colonial Office - has the absolute say as to who is to be our Head of State. This Head of State it will need in order to enforce by decree the decisions of the Internal Security Council. He is there too for another purpose. He also must enforce by decree the decisions of the Inter-Governmental Council. There again, he is there too. I ask you, Sir, whether you really believe for a single moment that the Colonial Office would appoint an Asian acceptable to the people to this post or whether it would, in fact, appoint either a Malayan-born Englishman which it has every right to do under this paragraph, such as the President of the European Association - this non-political organisation which has been indulging in such mischievous representations to undermine our efforts to obtain independent status? Why should it not appoint him? He was born in Singapore or it could appoint somebody who is deeply imbued with the imperialist, colonialist concept who is a good trusted capitalist - and there are many of them who are Asians who have done extremely well under the colonial system and who would be very happy to take over as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and to enforce the Colonial Office's will. I know that the Chief Minister has said, "We must have faith in the goodwill and honesty of the people with whom we deal." Goodwill and honesty of the Colonial Office fall ill from the lips of a representative of the colonial people but let us ask ourselves if there is goodwill and honesty in the Colonial Office? Why could they not entrust the Singapore Government with making the recommendation to Her Majesty? Why should he be appointed not at the request of the Singapore Government but at the request of the British Government - a British Government appointment in respect of a British colony? That is logical and we can understand it!

Now, Sir, we come to a very comic aspect of this motion before the House: a thing that is completely minor and is virtually unimportant but it has been blown up and blown up and blown up in order to obscure the grave defects of the constitution before us and now I refer to paragraph 30 of the Report which bans subversives. You are told in this motion before the House - which you notice I have left untouched because, in principle, I agree that the British Government should not interfere internally, though as regards the question of banning subversives I consider it a normal, intelligent and reasonable precaution:

"That this Assembly-

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

If you look at paragraph 12, as I said earlier, Sir, you will read:

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

So, paragraph 30 is one of those agreed. In paragraph 30, Sir, it is said that the Singapore delegation does not accept Her Majesty's Government's proposals and it takes note with deep regret of Her Majesty's intention and then at the end of it, it is signed and I understand that there is a nice film of the signing by the hon. Members - it seems that I must not read names - but you know the names of the delegation. Now, Sir, what would you think of an agreement with a clerk in which you say to him, "You shall work on the following days: Christmas Day and Easter Friday," and he were to add to that contract: "The party of the second part does not accept this clause and notes it with regret," but he signs the agreement? Is the agreement valid or is it not valid? Look, let us be frank about it. Was this item on the agenda? Could not a single member of the delegation have said, "How dare you, Sir? This item is not on the agenda and we will not discuss it." Could nobody have said, "Look, this is a pretty dirty trick, interfering in minor internal matters. We will not sign it." We are told that the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies introduced this at the very last moment and you are asked to believe, Sir, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was prepared to jeopardise an agreement reached with Singapore for this one petty paragraph. We are asked to believe that and that Singapore protested with weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth but they accepted it. We are asked to believe that nobody could stand up and say, "We will not discuss what is not on the agenda. We will not accept this," and called his bluff. We are asked to believe that the British Government seeks - instead of using its powers under the Internal Security Council that it has, Sir, if it really wanted it - to put in the constitution this ban on subversives. Sir, I am irresistibly reminded of the story I told you yesterday of how Sir John Nicoll told us to go ahead and be popular with our "mobs" and say that it is the big bad Sir John Nicoll who has imposed the Emergency Regulations and we did not want it. I ask you to consider whether in this respect it was true that the Rt. Hon. Alan Lennox-Boyd is the villain of the piece or is he acting as the indulgent host to skittering mice who are taking hospitality a-hiding in his coat-tails. Sir, we are told - by the Liberal-Socialists too - that this clause is very undemocratic. Now, Sir, it has been said that I am in favour of this paragraph 30. I am in favour of the principle of banning subversives from elections but I am not in favour of this paragraph 30. I would like to make my position clear, Sir. I am not correcting anything I said in my very first letter on the 12th of April to the President of the Labour Front Party, who is the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) -in fact, on the very day that we learned the details, I said:

"I am ashamed that the Singapore Mission should have declared its opposition to the banning of known subversives from standing for election on the ground that this is a departure from normal democratic practice.

Of course, the British Government has no right to impose its will in this matter on the people of Singapore but it seems to me that it is the duty of the Singapore Government for the protection of its people and of the democratic principle that this provision should be included in any new election Bill. I deny the thesis that democracy includes the right to commit suicide. The right to live does not include the right to die. No man has a right to kill himself."

Sir, I do not want to be long. If three of our judges tell me that a man is a Communist, or working for Communists, Sir, then it is my duty, for the sake of the welfare of the people of Singapore, to prevent that man from spreading his poison. I know it is unpopular. Sir, we must have faith somewhere. I do not have faith in our Chief Secretary. I do not have faith in our police force; but I have worked for 20 years and more - and worked with a critical eye - with our judges, and I say to you, Sir, that their traditions of integrity (and I do not mean only our High Court Judges) are a thing of beauty. They make mistakes, Sir, but they are honest. I have faith in them, and if three judges tell me this man seeks the overthrow of the Constitution by acts of violence or acts of dishonesty, and is a subversive, this is good enough for me. Sir, I would remind you that, under our present elections law, we prevent bankrupts from standing for nomination, and we prevent persons in prison from voting - we prevent all sorts of people from voting. Why should we not prevent from standing for election a person who, three of our judges say, is a man who seeks to destroy the democratic way of life we seek to establish?

Sir, I know that Members of the Opposition are more impressed by arguments that come from Peking than arguments that come from anywhere else, and if you will bear with me, I would say that the best argument I have heard in favour of banning subversives was an argument that I heard, ironically enough, in Peking. We were there, Sir, at the time when the Government of West Germany banned the Communist Party in West Germany, and the newspapers in China, Sir - and I had translations of many of them daily - were in violent outcry against the undemocratic West Germans for banning the Communist Party and preventing it from taking part in elections. So I said to a very senior member of the Chinese Government; I said. "Look, you keep saying that this is very undemocratic, but supposing a Chinese who believed in parliamentary democracy were to come here and seek to establish a party - would you let him?" And he said, "But, Mr Marshall, you have read our Constitution?" I said, "Indeed, I have." "Well, you know," he said, "our Constitution is a democratic dictatorship" - and, in fact, Sir, the first line of that Constitution is "that the Government of the People's Republic of China is a democratic dictatorship of the peasant and the worker." I said, "Yes, I know that it is a democratic dictatorship. So what?" "Well," he said, "if anybody seeks to establish parliamentary democracy, that is counter-revolutionary!"

Fair enough. So, Sir, in a democratic dictatorship, you can only propagate democratic dictatorship. Now I say, Sir, surely the logic applies also that, in a democracy, you are not permitted to propagate anti-democracy; that freedom does not mean you can pour poison into our water supply. So, Sir, I say, I will keep maintaining, however unpopular that may be, that no responsible government in this country which finds it necessary to put a man in gaol because he is subversive, should refrain from forbidding him from standing for election. I ask you, Sir, which is more undemocratic, that or to deprive a man of his freedom of movement, to deprive him of his wife and children, to deprive him of his employment and his normal activities, to put him in the democratic Changi Gaol for his health? Is that democratic? Is that less undemocratic than merely forbidding him to stand for election? Only once in four years in the normal course, Sir, does a man stand for election: once in four years. But to put him in gaol is to deprive him for 24 hours every day of the freedom of movement and activities of a citizen. Which is the more undemocratic?

I would ask the Chief Minister if he thinks it undemocratic to forbid the Member for Bukit Timah and Mr Devan Nair from standing for election? Is it more democratic to put them in gaol? If it is undemocratic to prevent them from standing for election, does he want them to stand for election in Changi Gaol? Is that the Chief Minister's idea of a fair election, or is he going to be logical and repeal the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and release these men he himself has put in the democratic Changi Gaol? Is he going to release them? It is undemocratic to prevent them from standing for election; surely then it is more undemocratic to put them in gaol? If he wants them to stand for election, will he release them? Am I deemed unfair in asking a chief minister and a politician to be logical?

Sir, the P.A.P. says this is very undemocratic, very undemocratic. Ha! What has the P.A.P. done, Sir, to seek to release these subversives from gaol and to permit them to stand for election or pursue normal activities? I have not seen a single motion from the P.A.P. seeking to repeal the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Of course, they do not want to repeal it; of course they do not want those men out of gaol. The struggle for power between the right and left wings of the P.A.P. is notorious. If the left wing comes out of gaol, the right wing goes out of the window! I do not mind that struggle, Sir, so long as we are not involved in putting our hands to a manoeuvre that is, to my mind, Sir, below the dignity and the proper conduct of a Member of the Assembly and a representative of the people.

The P.A.P., it is notorious, is extremely anxious to deprive its left wing of the very people whom it pretends to befriend. We kiss Devan Nair, we kiss Devan Nair on both cheeks, and wait for Lennox-Boyd to hang him from the back! - that is the P.A.P. stand, and that is the only explanation consistent with the action taken in London. To suggest that a Minister of Her Britannic Majesty's Government is going to meddle in this petty little thing and risk a whole agreement is asking more, Sir, of credibility than even the people of Singapore can stand, however eloquent the advocates of the P.A.P. may be. I would have preferred it, Sir, if the P.A.P., or any Member of the Government or of the Opposition, were to come straight out and say, "Those who have appealed against their detention and whose appeals have been dismissed, and those who refuse to appeal against their detention, should be banned from standing for election, and should be banned from voting." I consider that democratic.

It is amusing to see how this Merdeka Delegation, Sir, has come under the influence of the double-talk of the Secretary of the P.A.P.; even the leader of the Liberal-Socialists has come back saying, "Ah! Let us have the Communists fight us openly. We will give them a good licking." It reminds me, Sir, of the advertisement for Tolley's Brandy, of a mouse which has taken a few drops spilt from the bottle and says, "Where'sh that cat?" [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Marshall: I am so sorry, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I have been rather patient with strangers in the gallery. Mr Serjeant-at-Arms, will you please see that there should not be unnecessary levity in the gallery in future? Please instruct accordingly.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very unhappy at this wording of paragraph 2 of the motion which seeks to save the face of the Merdeka Mission. I had intended to amend it to say we regret to note that the Merdeka Delegation has signed a Report containing paragraph 30, but my friend the Member for Changi, who, I hope, is going to second this amendment, tells me that it is unnecessary to make enemies and we should strive and obtain some support for a motion that is necessary for the welfare of the people. I therefore move, Sir,

That we leave out all words after "(1)" to the end of line 4, and insert "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"

and then, "(2)" stands, Sir,

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

11.12 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Sir, I beg to second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later stage.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

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.

Since when an amendment has been moved,

to leave out all words after "(1)" in the Order Paper to the end of line 4, that is to say, the words "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", and to insert "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".

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

11.15 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday we were regaled by the ex-Honourable the Chief Minister with an orgy of reminiscences. Today, I think he understands that when serious charges of double-crossing, charges that we have cheated the people, most of the people, most of the time, that we are climbing on the backs of the people to power, when such charges are made against the People's Action Party and not just the Member for Tanjong Pagar - graver issues have been raised. I do not wish to join him in his less honourable methods of attack. I have nothing to say against him and his personal life though he had chosen yesterday to say a few things not only of me but also of my wife.

Mr Marshall: Wife?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: My family. "Oxford educated", he said; he is wrong - we are not Oxford-educated, we were in Cambridge, and, as imperial universities go, one of the best two. He said that we are, or were, fashionable nationalists, that now we have become fashionable collaborators of the colonialists. He said a lot of other hard things and they will be tested in Tanjong Pagar. I did not have the opportunity yesterday evening to tell this House of my intentions, my Party's intentions, to have those charges, made so blithely and so freely in this Chamber, put before the voters in Tanjong Pagar, one of the most proletarian divisions in Singapore.

The issues are quite simple. The ex-Honourable the Chief Minister has said that this Constitution is a fraud and that the P.A.P. was a party to the fraud. We shall prove that it is not a fraud on the people of Singapore. The ex-Honourable the Chief Minister said that this ban is good; he supports it in principle. He says that the P.A.P. is just making a noise about it, shedding crocodile tears. He can prove it again in Tanjong Pagar.

We are not waffling wobblers, Sir. We mean what we say. Further, we never let our friends down, nor do we stab them in the back, whatever differences there may have been. When the ex-Chief Minister condemned his Chief Secretary and the police force he may have been letting out official secret information. But I am not giving him any of my inner Party secrets. They were colleagues of mine and my Executive Committee, and my Party will never take office as long as they are in gaol, whatever our differences. If the ex-Chief Minister understands Asian standards of conduct, he will understand that the P.A.P. can never say, like he has said of his former colleague, "This great Malayan, Mr Francis Thomas", and now denigrate him and all his former colleagues. That is not the sort of thing we do.

Yesterday, the theme was, "Do you remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, do you remember those halcyon days when I was king, and all the glorious things I did?" The theme should have been, "Can we forget, can we forget the shameful, the humiliating conduct of a man who was entrusted with the welfare of a people, a man who only yesterday said he would have us made into a country under the trusteeship of the United Nations, or with the headquarters of the United Nations on it?"

To many of us, yesterday was a sad and solemn day. We have all learnt in our two years what all this is about: but some political babies never grow up. This is a three-cornered fight - I repeat, a three-cornered fight - between the British, the Communists and the Nationalists.

Mr Marshall: Where are they?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The ex-Chief Minister has read a series of articles written by one Mr J. Lam in the Suara Merdeka, a series of five articles which set out an analysis of the situation. I was interested to read a letter which was published under his name commending that analysis. Does he really imagine that a nationalist will collaborate with the Colonial Office? Sir, to me, the Secretary of State is to this very day the Secretary of State, despite Her Majesty's Government's hospitality to two Singapore delegations. I have never called him, "My dear Alan". I quote. "30 Queen's House, St. James' Court - 17th May, 1956 - My dear Alan - Yours sincerely, David Marshall". Says Alan Lennox-Boyd, "My dear David - Yours sincerely, Alan". "My dear Alan - Yours sincerely. David". "My dear David - Yours ever, John Hare". "My dear John - Yours sincerely. David". Sir, in these little things, one discloses one's subconscious attitudes. But I, I hate the British colonial system, and I will hate it to my dying day! I do not make political friends of those whom I consider my implacable enemies. In this triangular fight, my duty as a nationalist is to see that an independent, united, democratic, non-Communist Malaya survives! When the Member for Cairnhill understands this, he will understand the consistency of every move of the P.A.P. Then he will understand why we do what we do.

We were told that we sold the people of Singapore when we signed that Report. Sir, I know the Member for Cairnhill has a flair for turning this Assembly into a court of law. He has once told us that "may" means "must" and lots of other things besides when he was in "constitutional" difficulties. Today, he is telling us that a report means an agreement, that because paragraph 12 says the agreements are set out in the Report, therefore it is an agreement. There cannot be an agreement to agree and as a lawyer, he knows that! When we say under paragraph 30 that we disagree, it means the whole position is open.

"Why did we not refuse to sign the Report and come back in anger?", he asks. Sir, let us have a flash-back to Tuesday, 15th May, 1956. There are eleven other Members in this House, besides the ex-Chief Minister and myself, who can bear witness to what I said, to what I am saying now. I urged the ex-Chief Minister: "Go back to the Assembly, debate the matter and then take it one step further; do not just break up the talks there on your initiative. Go back, sort it out with the Parties, decide the line, the correct policy." But no. For him the great drama, the Press of the world was outside 10 Carlton House Terrace. He flew off into a rage. As loyal Members of the delegation, we watched his rage in silence, but we supported him by remaining quiet. He went over to No. 11 Carlton House Terrace. The world Press, TV and radio were there; and he said, "This is the saddest moment of my life. I am bankrupt; I am finished." And the TV man said, "Say that again, Mr Marshall" - he had missed it the first time. The error having been made, we were prepared to go through with it, to come back to a much more militant situation with a possibility of an organised clash with the colonial power.

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, we discovered - and it was not just I who made the discovery - that the Member for Cairnhill was not made of sterner stuff. Was it we who had no guts to go through with it? There are eleven silent witnesses in this Assembly who were members of that delegation; there were two others who were on study courses, also elected Members, present in London. Who was responsible for that debacle?

If we want reminiscences, we shall have them galore. And I think I am duty bound, in view of the electioneering nature of the ex-Chief Minister's speech yesterday and today, to wash some dirty linen in public, though not his personal dirty linen. I have no skeletons in my cupboard. My private life can bear closer scrutiny than the jibes of the ex-Honourable the Chief Minister. I quote, not from his private doings, but from his public statements. He, more than any other Member in this House, has made - and consistently made-, statements which contradict whatever he has said before. Yesterday, he said - with the elections in mind - "Those Chinese students are made of pure gold!", relating the Kallang Rally incidents. But what did he say at the time of the Kallang rally? He has a short memory, but we have not. We always remember what has gone before, and we always follow up what has gone before.

19th March, the day after that memorable occasion. The slimy English language Press to which he lent himself had this:

"Riot at Kallang Rally; 50 hurt.

Says the P.A.P. Secretary, Mr Lee Kuan Yew: 'This meeting has been spoiled by gangsters.'"

Said the police in a midnight interview:

"A police spokesman said that the rioting was an organised Communist demonstration. This, he said, was proved by the Communist songs and dances performed by Chinese school boys and girls.

Last night Mr Marshall said he was distressed. He said, 'We know the enemy within our midst. We know we have quite a few Communists and their technique for climbing on the bandwagons of decent movements and twisting them for their evil purposes. It is quite notorious. It is most unfortunate that the wonderful spirit and the tremendous friendly throng should be marred by vicious organised destructive elements.'"

Let us be consistent. 20th March:

"Marshall pledges: 'I'll crush 'em. Yanko youths are not true decent people of Singapore. The Merdeka riot at Kallang Airport on Sunday spurred the Singapore Government on to an all-out drive against the Communists and Communism.'

Yesterday the Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, asked the police for a full report into the disorders. He said, 'I intend crushing them before they get me.'"

Sir, he has a persecution complex. The ex-Chief Minister said that people are always getting at him. They always want to torment him. I am told that in medical language it is paranoia.

"Mr Marshall said he would not hesitate to act. He said, 'Singapore does not want any yanko merdeka. We want to end colonialism...'."

It makes sickening reading. Let us be consistent. What are we fighting for? What are we talking about? Or are we just living for the moment, hoping to get support for the moment? Have we no principles? Do we not believe in this one united democratic, non-Communist Malaya? I could quote him ad nauseam. I do not propose to quote him ad nauseam, but I propose to go a fair length of the way. He and his Minister for Labour, the present Chief Minister - I am sorry for the both of them, because we knew, as the ex-Chief Minister did not, that whoever assumes office under the Rendel Constitution is dead, because we denounced and killed the constitution before it came into force. The ex-Chief Minister thought otherwise. Now he is trying to climb on the bandwagon of those who denounced him and is denouncing the present Chief Minister, his ex-Labour Minister. But let me quote what he said on 6th November, 1956, from the Official Report, col. 506:

"I believe the Chief Minister is the best man we have today to bring home a decent constitution for Singapore within the shortest possible time."

Mr Marshall: I believed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes. The Member for Cairnhill said that in the Assembly. He is a man whose whole life is a series of "I believe in wishing wells." He believed yesterday that he could make these scandalous charges against my Party officials and my Party and get away with it. My Party Treasurer is not a Member of this Assembly and could not reply to him. He will reply to the Member for Cairnhill in Tanjong Pagar. We never run from a fight. We do not go to Borneo or Batu Pahat, because we believe that he who fights and runs away, lives to run away another day.

Sir, let us deal with the charges against this Report. Says the ex-Chief Minister in his letter of the 12th of April published in all the Press:

"(1) The Report indicates that the new constitution will not be brought into force in all probability for two years or more, during which time we will continue under colonial rule."

Does he not understand what it means - that now, because he has stepped out of the Chief Ministership, it is colonial rule; because he had said when he was the Chief Minister that it was not colonial rule. Contradiction one. Has he forgotten those headlines:

"Your Government. We the people."

Does he admit that for one year he carried on as the stooge of the colonial administration, as an adjunct of the Colonial Office? We said it was colonial rule. We never took office. He offered us everything under the sun - and this is no official secret - he offered to make some of us Ministers for Education; at one time he even thought of making us Chief Secretaries. And now he says, "If we have this new constitution, there will be an end to colonial rule." That is the implication of the words "postponement of elections prolongs colonialism." If this second constitution which is now being proposed is colonial rule, then how can its implementation end it? Contradiction two. One has to be logical. If we say today that this Report is against the interests of the people of Singapore, not only paragraph 30 on subversion, but the whole Report, then there is only one decent thing to do: to be logical we must reject the whole Report and say, "No, we start all over again." This would be the only stand. One has to be consistent.

Now, says the ex-Chief Minister, "Why postpone the elections?" Sir, when he went to London in April last year to open the talks, the deadline for the new elections under the new constitution was April this year - one year, because he knew, and he convinced us on the delegation, that it required one year to implement it. There are 11 silent witnesses in this Assembly. He ought to know that unless a miracle has happened to the machinery of the Singapore Government and the machinery of the British Government, this constitution cannot be brought into effect before the 1st of January, 1958. Knowing it, he now says we can hold elections in July. There is only one consistent theme: how to get a quick election, how to make another bid for power. Oh for the glorious halcyon days now past!

New ideas - every day he had a new idea in London. We know that. He has got a new idea now. But the trouble with all his new ideas is that they are never tested before they are put forward. He says, "All we need to do is to amend our Elections Ordinance, look up the identity cards, register everybody who was resident here for ten years." And he discovers, lo and behold, that his identity card did not begin till 1948, a fact that had crossed our mind when we read his amendment. But we were not consulted on this and we were under no duty to point out the error of his ways.

Now, he says, on the spur of the moment, another new idea, "Well, since it started in 1948 let us change our citizenship laws and say nine years." Registration started in October, Sir, and not more than 20 per cent would have registered before the end of 1948. Does he want to amend now and say let all those who own identity cards, registered in 1949, go on the register? Do we want to improvise as we go along or do we stand on principle?

This is the principle that the P.A.P. stands on. We did not tell the people last year, as the Hon. the ex-Chief Minister did, "This is the end of the road. When I get this, this is Merdeka." That was what he did, although he knew it was not merdeka. His trick formula to produce a trick result which he, and only he wanted, was "100 per cent merdeka to me; 25 per cent external affairs and defence back to you. I am independent. This is a permanent state of affairs. I can attend the Prime Ministers' conference. I can go to the United Nations." We shall talk more plainly when we go down to Tanjong Pagar.

We said in April 1956 before we left Paya Lebar airport that this was only three-quarters and not the end of the road. But says the ex-Chief Minister, "I am not Oliver Twist. I never come back and ask for more. I want to settle it once and for all. I am satisfied so long as we are called an independent country, so long as I can go to the Prime Ministers' conference and go to the United Nations. We will stay like this forever." We said: "No." It was a lie to the people of Singapore, and we told him so in London. And he was angry again, because he thought we were persecuting him, that we were trying to belittle the credit that he was going to achieve by bringing home this new constitution.

Before I left for London this time, my Party said quite categorically that what we were asking for was just 75 per cent with no trick formula. It was an open honest transaction. We are getting 75 per cent, complete internal self-government.

Mr Marshall: We are not!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: We shall come to that and prove it. Says the ex-Chief Minister, we are stooges of the British. But he dare not meet the crucial point about the Internal Security Council. Who has the deciding vote? If we are anybody's stooge, we will be the stooge of the Federation Government; and if we are honest about joining the Federation as a member - 11 States plus us, twelve - then the Federation must have the last word over Singapore. Either we are consistent and say, "Yes, if we accept merger, that is our position. Therefore we are prepared now to accept that position." Either that or we are not consistent. Some would like merger but in the indefinite future because if it happens in the immediate present, nobody can go to the Prime Ministers' conference except the Federation Prime Minister, nor can anybody go to the United Nations from Singapore. So let us postpone this to the indefinite future. The P.A.P. has no such ambitions, Mr Speaker, Sir. We do not whip ourselves into a frenzy, impatiently groping for some way to fulfil our personal ambitions. We believe in what we believe in and are prepared to die for it. We do not waver.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose now to go through the points about the constitution taken up by the ex-Chief Minister paragraph by paragraph. A few more words about the date of implementation - this formula in paragraph 54. What I signed, Sir, I defend. What the P.A.P. signs, it defends.

Mr Marshall: Including paragraph 30?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Including paragraph 30 that we did not accept and will not accept. Let us read paragraph 54:

"It was agreed that the date should be fixed by the Governor after he was satisfied, after considering an address from the Legislative Assembly, that a reasonable period for the registration, as provided in paragraph 50 of this Report, of persons eligible for Singapore citizenship had elapsed."

"Why the 1st of January, 1958?" Because administratively it would be impossible to implement the new constitution before then, and the ex-Chief Minister knows that. He told us it took one year - April 1956 to April 1957. We have reduced it to eight months.

"Why is this date left open?" Because we wanted to decide the registration period, because the Parties have no mandate on the period for registration. We decide on principle that they will go on the register. We now decide how long a period we are going to afford them to get on the register. Malicious distortions known to be untrue have been put on this particular section. The ex-Chief Minister knows that if we allow - as we hope to reach All-Party agreement on this - a six-month period for registration, this constitution will come into force with general elections in one year from now - six months for the preparation and all the other administrative work and six months for the actual registration of those new applicants.

And as for all this talk about our wanting to perpetuate our seats in this Assembly. Does the ex-Chief Minister imagine that he could make these charges against the P.A.P. and expect the P.A.P. to take it lying down? We know him well, and have reason to know him well. By lunch-time it was quite obvious that sooner or later the Member for Cairnhill was going to issue a general challenge: "Let us have a fight. Come out and have it out with me." So we quietly went to the library and looked up the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance in the Singapore Order in Council, 1954, and we discovered that under section 47 (3) (h), a Member can resign by writing under his hand to the Speaker. By the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, sections 25 and 34, by-election writs will be issued, Nomination Day fixed, and Polling Day settled. I hope the Governor will do this expeditiously. It is in the interests of the people of Singapore not to have more malicious falsehoods said about (1) the new constitution and paragraph 30 of the Report, and (2) the People's Action Party.

Mr Speaker: Order. In using the expression "malicious falsehoods", does the hon. Member refer to the remarks by the Member for Cairnhill in this Assembly?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I would be dishonest if I said that it did not include the Member for Cairnhill, but it was primarily intended for those remarks made outside the Assembly not only by the Member for Cairnhill but by a number of other persons for reasons of their own.

Mr Speaker: If that expression has reference to the remarks made by the Member for Cairnhill, then it must be withdrawn.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: In so far as that remark refers to the Member for Cairnhill, I withdraw.

Everybody knows that the elections can be held next year and that the moment this Assembly decides that the time has come for it, the Rendel Constitution comes to an end. Once we vote to end it, if the Governor does not call for new elections, everybody in this House can resign and that is an end to the matter. But of course the ex-Chief Minister must find some way to pursue his argument to its absurd conclusion. The absurd conclusion to which he comes is that probably with the connivance both of the Liberal-Socialist Party and the People's Action Party, for the benefit of preserving a $500 per month seat, we will allow these fine gentlemen - as he once referred to them - to remain in office and even extend it by Order in Council to beyond 1959. Does he really believe that? Does he expect anybody to believe that? Does he not understand what this is all about?

As to the distortions about the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, I note that he has not said that the change of name from the Governor-General to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is a departure from the mandate of the Assembly. There has been no departure. Last year he attempted to prove to us, quoting legal authorities that when the Governor has to consult him, the ex-Chief Minister, he is bound to carry out the Chief Minister's advice. And on no better authority than the one he has established - we were prepared to accept this formula: that the Singapore Government will tell Her Majesty's Government who this Yang di-Pertuan Negara is to be and Her Majesty's Government will tell the Queen. In the first place, we do not want to have anything to do with the Queen. We want to be part of one Malaya and we will have a Sultan or the Yang di-Pertuan Besar or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. But we know that we are in an in-between stage. We do not really care whether or not he is the representative of the Queen. We want to focus our loyalty on a Malayan person and that Malayan person will be decided by the Singapore Govern ment. If the ex-Chief Minister does not agree, then he will be proved wrong when the time comes in April or May next year.

Why did the Singapore Delegation not put it down that the Singapore Government shall advise Her Majesty the Queen? He is a lawyer, Sir, and ought to know the endless argument we had on the last delegation when I asked him who was the sovereign power in Singapore under his new proposed constitution. He wriggled and waffled and wobbled. He could not give an answer because in international law the sovereign power must rest in someone who represents that country internationally. If we want to represent this country internationally we have to get complete independence. That is a fundamental principle of international law. An international juridical person must be a sovereign power, not a semi-sovereign power. Therefore the Government of Singapore is not in a position to have direct access to the Queen. Nor are we interested in having direct access to the Queen. The Queen is advised by her independent governments in the Commonwealth and in Britain, not by semi-independent countries or States like Singapore. We are interested in the substance and not in the form. It is agreed that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be Malayan-born. Now that the Member for Cairnhill is no longer in office and is not responsible for Government Bills, he spends more time studying them. In two nights of hard work he discovered a series of flaws which he did not discover in one year of office as Chief Minister. Had we put down just "Malayan"? Must we not define "Malayan"? A definition becomes necessary. We have restricted it to the narrowest class, not those who are naturalised Malayans, but those who are Malayan-born. In other words, birth either in one of the two territories now known as the Federation of Malaya or the Colony of Singapore. If a Party is returned to office under this constitution and chooses to appoint the President of the European Association as Yang di-Pertuan Negara and thinks it can get away with it, let it try.

Sir, we told the ex-Chief Minister that if he nominated a white man, Mr Francis Thomas, first into the Assembly, and then made him a Minister, he was bound to incur a good deal of odium-because people will not understand that Mr Francis Thomas, according to the ex-Chief Minister's definition, was a Malayan.

And let him not forget, when he wallowed in all these flashbacks to 1956, that the mass of the crowd at Kallang were waving P.A.P. flags. He knows that. He scooted from the platform when it collapsed. We stayed behind on a van and sang songs with them. Let me just remind him of what he said then.

"If the London talks fail, I cannot think of the repercussions. In Whitehall there are Colonel Blimps and in Singapore we have Colonel Blimps, but I am certain the common decent people of Britain are behind our demand for merdeka."

Nonsense, Mr Speaker, Sir, the common decent people of Great Britain are more interested in their T.V. sets than in Singapore. They have never heard of Singapore. "You should not judge Britain by the Britons we have here. Rather," said he, "you should judge them by some of the Britons we have here, men like Dr Garlick of S.A.T.A. Another good example is Mr Francis Thomas" (now in disgrace). Alas, I warned him that this was not a passenger he could carry, however good he was. We think of him-

Mr Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Marshall: In so far as I protest against distortions of my speech.

Mr Speaker: Order, please. Is it a point of order?

Mr Marshall: The point of order is that the hon. Member is distorting my speech, because I should then like to mention the distortion.

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order, but the hon. Member can of course get up on a point of clarification and if the Member for Tanjong Pagar gives way, he can speak.

Mr Marshall: I ask no indulgence from him, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Let me clarify for the ex-Chief Minister, Sir. Mr Francis Thomas, this white man, and I called him a white man and I will still call him a white man; and his Royal Flying Club is not settled yet because the new trainees are nearly all Europeans -

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that is relevant?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No, Sir, that was just an aside. But was Mr Francis Thomas appointed by the Governor against the strenuous opposition of the ex-Chief Minister who resisted the appointment as a good nationalist leader? Was he not responsible for Mr Francis Thomas? We know he was appointed by the Governor but was it not on the advice and recommendation of the ex-Chief Minister?

Mr Marshall: He knows full well he did.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He did?

Mr Marshall: Certainly.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Then he has got to stand by Mr Thomas.

Mr Marshall: I am.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I know it is very unfortunate being reminded of these things.

Mr Marshall: Unfortunate distortion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated that if the Member for Cairnhill wishes to intervene, he can stand up and I have no doubt that the Member for Tanjong Pagar will concede.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, I am afraid I will not be able to confirm the fact that you need not doubt. But I shall try to be fairer to the Member for Cairnhill than he was to the People's Action Party yesterday when he spoke till four o'clock on very little.

There are three summits of power under this constitution. If the ex-Chief Minister were not so addicted to pictures and thinking in terms of pictures only, we might be able to get him to understand things beyond the picture stage. In abstract concepts there are three summits of power under the new constitution:

(1) The Yang di-Pertuan Negara - purely formal Head of the State;

(2) The Prime Minister and his Cabinet;

(3) The British Commissioner, as Chairman of the Internal Security Council.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara acts either on the advice of the Prime Minister or on the advice of the United Kingdom Commissioner. In all internal matters except those where a conflict has arisen and goes to the Internal Security Council, he acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. When there is a conflict between the Singapore Government and the British Government, it goes to the Internal Security Council where a Federation Minister sits in judgment. Let me tell the Chief Minister this - the ex-Chief Minister, Sir, I am sorry. The difficulty is that he conducts himself as if he were still one and he would insist on sitting with the Government, it does confuse Members on the Opposition. In his forlorn and lonesome way he knows that having denigrated the gentlemen who now sit on the opposite benches, he finds it a little difficult, in this comedy of musical chairs, to find a place in this Assembly where he could have safe associates.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should try to be a little more relevant.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I shall try to be more relevant than the ex-Chief Minister, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is that a reflection on the Chair?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No, Sir, certainly not. That is a failing for which we cannot hold the Chair responsible.

"Most important of all," said he, "the kernel of internal self-government is internal security and this, under the new constitution, is out of the hands of the Singapore Government. This is what we strongly and bitterly fought against last year and now we swallow it sugarcoated. The merdeka which the mission is bringing back is a pockmarked beauty shrouded in chloroform." Last year, Sir, I remember the same gentleman who wrote this statement running around with a bottle of chloroform chasing a more pockmarked beauty. The chloroform did not work, and he came back here a very sad man.

What have we given away? Last year the Internal Security Council could only discuss matters which Her Majesty's Government considers are not external. If Her Majesty's Government says, this is external, then it is outside the province of the Singapore Government or the Defence and Security Council. Oh yes, let him read it. If there is any disagreement, it is Her Majesty's Government in the Security Council who decides whether it is internal or external. That was why the issue arose as to this Federation Minister, why we were prepared to put our fate into the hands of the Federation and not the British. We wanted the Federation Minister to decide whether it is internal or external. And if the ex-Chief Minister will look at paragraph 27 (i) he will know that in sober language, to which he is unaccustomed, it says:

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

In other words, we have won now the right to have any matter, whether it be external or internal, decided by the Federation Minister who can say, "I agree with the Singapore Government that although this is external, it affects internal affairs sufficiently to make it an internal matter and I am voting with the Singapore Government." And we will win. The trouble with the Member for Cairnhill is that every time he thinks of the Federation Government, he envisaged himself in opposition to it. "I am not against the Tunku. But oh, why must everybody crawl up to him?" We are accused of crawling on our bellies, and God knows what else people see in their nightmares.

There will be general elections in the Federation in 1959. With elections there will be a new phase and a new atmosphere and it is our fervent hope that this constitution, this tiga suku merdeka - the Member for Cairnhill calls it "busok" merdeka - if this tiga suku meredeka is busok, what he was trying to sell the people of Singapore last year as a permanent settlement was tipu merdeka, tiga suku palsu merdeka. It was never merdeka and he knew it. It was a fraud on the people of Singapore and he was angered at me because I said so in London. He said then, "I am not Oliver Twist." I am told that he went to London shortly after the Prime Minister of Burma, and the Prime Minister of Burma at a Press luncheon at the Commonwealth Press Club said, "I am not Oliver Twist", and that phrase struck him.

I am prepared to stake not only my judgment, but the judgment of my Party on this matter, that this constitution is a right step towards merger, that it is a right decision to put our fate together with the Federation's fate. If Singapore and the Federation agree, as we hope they will, if not now, probably after 1959, then the British Government is out-voted every time in the Internal Security Council. Does the ex-Chief Minister not understand that? That four to three does not necessarily mean Singapore in opposition to the Federation Government? If he starts off on the major premise that he is superior to the Tunku, and therefore the Tunku should listen to what he says, then there is bound to be a clash, as there was, as everybody knows there was. Everybody knows what happened in Baling. But the less said about these things the better. When we think in terms of the Federation Minister, we think in terms of the representative of 11 States, of which we want to be an additional member. The fate of Singapore will be decided by the fate of the Federation. These are sombre political facts which no trick formula can get us out of. Economically we are bound: politically we are controlled: militarily we are confined. The road to merdeka is the road to merger. The ex-Chief Minister is not a man who thinks in terms of five years or ten years. A friend of mine had a discussion with him the other day and asked him, "What would happen in five years?" He said, "I am not interested in five years or ten years. I am a man who lives for the moment." And he is, and we will prove him catastrophically wrong to take that attitude towards merger. Does he not understand that this desire for unity is something bigger than the Tunku, or any of his Ministers? Does he not understand this concept of one Malaya is alive in the minds of all the young Malayan intellectuals both here in the University of Malaya and in England and elsewhere? Does he not understand that ideas persist long after the men who have espoused these ideas have gone? With Party Ra'ayat and the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party openly saying that they want merger, does the ex-Chief Minister not understand how public opinion influences the leadership and how the leadership in turn influences public opinion? Does he not know that when the Chief Minister of the Federation told an audience of Malayans in London that there would be no merger, there was acute disappointment? And that the students still believe in merger? And they are the administrators, the D.O.'s, the magistrates, and the future political leaders of Malaya?

We are not striving to work out some trick formula so that we can enjoy the "sensation of freedom" for the present. We are not carrying on in this Assembly till May next year just for the sake of having the joy of seeing the Member for Cairnhill disgrace his former colleagues. We are here for a political purpose, and when May comes, he will understand what that political purpose is. Although other Members in this Assembly have not really understood it, they are at least beginning to see the light; whereas the Member for Cairnhill imagines that all that he has got to do is to shout and he gets what he wants.

I say once again that the Internal Security Council is a practical solution to the internal security problem. Let us face facts. There is only one way in which the political situation in Singapore can change radically. If you want to have free and open competition of all political beliefs in a peaceful and democratic manner, including the Communists if they compete peacefully and constitutionally to work the democratic system, if you accept that as a major premise-

Mr Marshall: You accept the Communists -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I prefer to see the Indian experiment work itself out to its logical conclusion. Let us face facts. If a people have lost faith completely in their democratic institutions, because they cannot find men of calibre to run them, then, however good that system, it perishes. Ultimately it is the men who run the system who make it come to life. And if you insist, in spite of the fact that the people have lost faith in those institutions, you have got to do it like South Vietnam, or perhaps Thailand where a state of emergency was declared after the election. I postulate this - and we have not moved from that position - that if the Communists are prepared to compete peacefully and democratically to work the democratic system, then they should be entitled to do so; but if they are going to use force at the same time as peaceful competition, then we shall have to fight. I have said that before.

Whatever government that comes into office in Singapore under any constitution - even the kind of constitution which the ex-Chief Minister envisaged last year - representation on the United Nations and the Prime Ministers' conference, foreign affairs and defence in the hands of Britain - and it is Communist, what happens? The constitution will be suspended. In the ultimate resort, it is a conflict of forces. I thought I had explained it all once to this House about how a new society, according to a great Chinese theoretician, is born out of the rifle barrel. Where there is a joinder of basic issues, as there is between the Western countries and the Russians, even in a country like Jordan just trying to make friends with the Russians, a coup takes place, force manipulates the situation. So what is all this cry over the Internal Security Council about? Does the Member for Cairnhill imagine that the Federation Government is going to sit back quietly and watch Singapore allow the M.C.P. to set up its headquarters just opposite the Johore Bahru causeway? And are the British going to stand idly back? Those are facts which must be faced. The situation in Singapore can only be changed when the situation in the Federation changes. And for that reason we are prepared to put our fate together with the Federation. That I am prepared to defend.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the unfounded allegations made against the People's Action Party was that we have changed our stand on citizenship, that in 1956 we supported U.M.N.O. in saying that there should be only one citizenship for the whole of Singapore and that there should not be both British nationality and concurrent Singapore citizenship. The Member for Cairnhill said that we have altered our stand. Sir, if he will refer to the Constitutional Report, he will see that there is only one citizenship, namely, Singapore citizenship. The people who are to be Singapore citizens automatically are those born in Singapore: all others, including British subjects wherever born, must register. It is for us a question of principle. We are therefore unable to see any merit whatsoever in the completely unprincipled, opportunist proposal of the Member for Cairnhill that one should take the identity cards of those registered at random in 1948 as the qualification for voting rights. The Member for Cairnhill is a man who is very agile at picking up new ideas. The last time he picked up a new idea, it led to disastrous results for himself. The people of Singapore have got more solid common sense than to listen to his ridiculous suggestion that principle should be thrown to the winds because some people want to satisfy their personal ambitions immediately and not eight months after August.

Mr Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. I have listened with patience to attacks upon me personally to which the Chair is silent and I would ask the Chair whether it is proper to suggest improper motives on my part in respect of the amendment I moved because I have refrained from making any personal suggestions myself, much as I would like to?

Mr Speaker: Will the honourable Member indicate a specific personal allusion so that I can rule on it?

Mr Marshall: He said that my suggestion was ridiculous and that the people of Singapore knew better than to support an amendment because the person wished to achieve personal glory eight months earlier than he otherwise would.

Mr Speaker: I cannot see anything unparliamentary about the word "ridiculous," and I understood the Member for Tanjong Pagar to make reference not to the Member for Cairnhill when he spoke about people who were seeking their personal glory but to those 260,000 voters whom we have been talking about.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was speaking of a class of people. I leave it to the Member for Cairnhill whether or not he considers himself eligible to qualify under that class. I venture no suggestion on it whatsoever but I do suggest that the stand of the People's Action Party on the date of the implementation of the elections and on citizenship is based on a sound principle which can be defended and will be defended.

The Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall) once called the ex-Member for Cairnhill (Mr C. C. Tan) the lizard of Cairnhill. I was discussing this matter with a zoologist. He said that a chameleon came within the species, lizard. I hate to say that there could be in place of a lizard of Cairnhill a chameleon of Cairnhill.

It is suggested that we have got less than last year. I would like to refer the ex-Hon. the Chief Minister to the demand of the All-Party Delegation that expatriate judges should be removed. It is a matter of principle to which he did not give vigorous support last year. As he will see in Annexure L, page 68, clause (18), part of Her Majesty's Government's proposals which he was prepared to accept provided they agreed to this business of the Order in Council being laid before the House of Commons was that-

"The Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court appointed before the coming into force of the new constitution to continue their offices."

"To continue their offices" indefinitely until they sought to retire themselves! Now, under paragraph 46 (c), we have reached agreement:

"Special arrangements regarding Supreme Court Judges not of local origin: In accordance with the Singapore Government's plans for Malayanisation, arrangements have been made to provide for the retirement on compensation terms of members of the judiciary not of local origin."

Similarly with police officers. He will remember that, last year, he was prepared to accept Her Majesty's Government's position as expressed in paragraph 54 of Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956:

"The Secretary of State confirmed that Her Majesty's Government attached great importance to the retention of the right to control appointments of Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Director of Special Branch."

Mr Marshall: We have accepted that.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Let me come to that by and by when I remind him of what took place when he went crawling back on his belly to see his dear friend Alan to try and reopen the talks. Now police officers however high up come under the Public Services Commission with only this one check - not even a safeguard but only one minor obstacle - that there could be a reference back once by the Internal Security Council. Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Singapore Constitution Conference (Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957) reads:

"Senior Police Appointments

29. With regard to the three Senior Police Officers, i.e. the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Director of the Special Branch, we agreed that these appointments should be manifestly free from political influence, and should therefore remain within the sphere of the Public Service Commission. In view however of the importance of these posts to internal security, opportunity should be provided for either Government to make representations or call for reconsideration before a recommendation put forward by the Public Service Commission was approved by the Queen's representative. We agreed, therefore, that it should be provided that these three appointments should be made by the Queen's representative on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and that the Internal Security Council should be informed of the recommendation before it was submitted to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara."

And these are the operative words:

"The Council might refer the recommendation back to the Public Service Commission once; but if repeated it [i.e. the recommendation] would stand."

Where therefore lies this charge that he was offered more last year than what we obtained this year?

Again as to the Internal Security Council, he said last year that this Internal Security Council would be under the control and supervision of the House of Commons - the British people in whom he had great faith. The recommendation of the High Commissioner who not only is the Chairman but has the decisive vote on this Internal Security Council, could result in an Order in Council from the Queen. Surely, he could not have forgotten that that was the shameful compromise with which he ran back to the Colonial Secretary? Let me remind him of it from the news reports. On Friday, May 18, the Daily Telegraph, a good right-wing newspaper, gave the Member for Cairnhill a great deal of cover in the days when he was banging the colonial gong for the British:

"Mr Lennox-Boyd had told him that he would give serious consideration to the new proposals only if they had the support of the Delegation. He [Mr David Marshall] had gone to the Minister's house in Chapel Street - Belgravia - for an informal meeting to explain his 'new idea', following the breakdown talks on independence for the Colony.

Mr Lennox-Boyd previously rejected Mr Marshall's three-year time limit for the special powers on internal security on which Britain insists as a safeguard against Communist subversion.

After the meeting, Mr Marshall still would not disclose the nature of his new plan. He explained that he had written a letter containing details of the new approach to Mr Lennox-Boyd and would not publish it until he had received the Minister's formal reply."

Let us see this new proposal. This was in the exchange of letters which you will remember, Mr Speaker, always began with loving endearments:

"17th May, 1956.

My dear Alan,

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 overriding 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'... The suggestion is this: -

(a) that the overriding 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 [i.e. a British Chairman with a casting vote, Sir], 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...".

What was the suggestion? He was prepared to accept Her Majesty's Government's proposal that the British High Commissioner should be the Chairman with a casting vote on that Security Council with powers to make or recommend Emergency Regulations and Orders in Council provided they are laid before the House of Commons.

Mr Marshall: In external affairs.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: And in internal affairs. We are prepared to put our fate together with the Federation, which the Member for Cairnhill is not prepared to do, because if we go with the Federation, there will be only one Prime Minister for the two territories. Let me remind him of the reception of this "new idea" amongst Members of his own delegation, lest we forget those last famous days at St. James' Court, like the last days of Hitler in his bunker: New idea after new idea, hour by hour, emergency conference after emergency conference, and the delegation trooped in just like Hitler's generals trooped in! But as impending doom came nearer and nearer, less and less generals attended these conferences until finally, at that famous tea party in Chapel Street - Belgravia - only two field-marshals turned up for him - the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga) of whom he must be justly proud and the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock) of whom he was very proud. Has he forgotten why he forfeited the respect of the whole delegation? Let me read to him what the News Chronicle reported as the curtain dropped in London - Act V, Scene V! Friday, May the 18th, "Marshall Fails in Last Talk":

"The door of Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd's Belgravia House shut silently on Mr David Marshall last night and Singapore's usually tempestuous Chief Minister was left standing glumly on the doorstep twiddling a red camelia in his fingers. Apart from the flower, he came away empty-handed from his eleventh-hour attempt to persuade the Colonial Secretary to reopen negotiations on the political future of Singapore.

A dejected Mr Marshall said that it was the end. He would fly back on Monday and resign. He would not say whether he would stand for Parliament again. For an hour over the teacups, he had persevered with his forlorn hope. He promised to accept all that Mr Lennox-Boyd had demanded subject only to one condition. This was that the British House of Commons should approve the acts of the Island's Security Council.

The talks to give Singapore's 1,200,000 people self-government broke down on Tuesday because Mr Marshall refused to accept a British dominated Council with overriding powers to interfere in domestic affairs.

Urged on by British Labour leaders, Mr Marshall swallowed his objections to the Council and resolved on one last try at a compromise. Only two of his twelve delegates backed him; they are fellow Ministers in the Cabinet."

Says the footnote: "That Camelia":

"During tea, Mr Marshall commented that he had never before seen such a red one. Mr Lennox-Boyd cut a bloom and gave it to him."

Sir, we gave him all the loyalty that any leader of any delegation could have asked for -

Mr Marshall: That is all you know about loyalty.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: -and he forfeited that right. Has he forgotten the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan), when he was told on that fateful evening of this new idea - at one of the last meetings when the generals attended - he said, "How can, man?" There are other witnesses in this Assembly other than the eleven silent ones. The former Secretary of the delegation would remember it with a vividness which, I am sure, could never be erased from his memory. We have had enough and we are not going to have any more nonsense from the Member for Cairnhill - the chameleon of Cairnhill. We stand by principle.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot have the use of the word "nonsense".

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: We will resist any jockeying, any manoeuvring, not because we want to persecute that poor man who thinks he is being persecuted because it is fashionable. He is irrelevant as a private person but if he chooses to raise grave issues and join them with the People's Action Party, then he must expect the People's Action Party to join issues with him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of this motion when the votes have been taken, I shall tender my resignation as Member for Tanjong Pagar. I shall be standing in the Tanjong Pagar by-election as the P.A.P. candidate for Tanjong Pagar. I am sure that the ex-Chief Minister-

Mr Speaker: Order. Although that has some bearing on the motion, I cannot see how it is strictly relevant. I have ruled out the Member for Cairnhill as being irrelevant when he referred to a challenge to a by-election.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is relevant to this extent, Mr Speaker, Sir, in that it is said that we do not represent the views of the people when we say that elections should be held on a day after the 1st of January, 1958, as we shall decide depending upon the period for registration.

It is said that the constitution is a fraud on the people of Singapore and that the P.A.P. was a party to this fraud. That will be tested. It is also said that the anti-subversion ban of paragraph 30 is a matter which the people support. But we say, "This is an acceptable constitution at this point, that it is a halfway house to full independence with merger with the Federation of Malaya." but that paragraph 30 cannot be defended on principle and must be removed before the new constitution comes into force.

The Member for Cairnhill's amendment seeks an immediate implementation of this colonial constitution, as he calls it, with this ban. He said that he wanted to justify his view at the elections. So it shall be. The fight is not over. This Report is a Report. If it were an agreement, there will be no more fight. But we shall carry this fight into the constituency, back to this Chamber and back to London, when necessary. My Party took its stand on this Report and we will justify it.

The ex-Chief Minister wants to have it both ways: first, he says, "Ban and block the extremists," and second, he says, "But these wicked people have used the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance." Who passed it? The ex-Chef Minister! Who resisted? We did. On principle, we still oppose the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. He can laugh but let me tell him this, that we understand the full implications of every one of our public declarations. What we say publicly, we honour publicly. That is something which he, I am sure, will never understand.

He has said that we have abandoned our colleagues. Mr Speaker, Sir, only he who has those low standards of moral conduct would think that others would do what he would. These men whom he once referred to in glowing terms: "Today (22nd March, 1956) I am proud of my collection of Singaporeans whom you elected to run the country," and Members will remember that he turned round particularly and said, "What a wonderful crew I have got, now that I have got rid of these horrible types over there." Now, we are all horrible men. Everybody is out of step. He represents the spirit of the Labour Front which is now dead. Everybody has got a left foot forward, he has got a right foot forward. Now he will understand that there are certain standards of conduct which unless adhered to leave some men isolated and abhorred. We will fight him on principle not because we want to destroy David Saul Marshall - ex-Hon. Chief Minister, ex-President of the Labour Front Party and ex-Senior Committee Member of the Labour Front Party. His personal life, his personal history and his future career do not interest us. But if he challenges the policy of the People's Action Party which has been forged in the best interest of the people of Singapore and Malaya, then he must be prepared to justify it. It is a fight of consistency versus confusion, of collective leadership versus the personality cult, of the People's Action Party versus the chameleon of Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to know that certain Members object to this debate going on beyond four o'clock. If I occupy too much of the time of this House, I might deprive other Members from getting some space in tomorrow's papers and getting their views known. I therefore propose to try to sum up my arguments in order that there would be time for Members both of the Government and of the other Opposition Party to put forward their views.

The fight over the agreed proposals in the Report. We will justify the date of the implementation - some day after the 1st of January, 1958 - after a reasonable period has elapsed. We propose six months as that reasonable period. An Address will be made from this Assembly to the Governor. If the People's Action Party says it will have an election on the date recommended by this Assembly, it will fight for that date.

Mr Marshall: Now he is fighting for his colleagues!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Second, the Internal Security Council is a sound and practical proposition. We believe in merger with the Federation as our proper destiny and the only hope of our survival as an independent democratic State in South-East Asia. We say that whoever says that that is a sell-out is not only anti-merger but is anti-Malayan.

Third, the agreed parts of this Report, as distinct from paragraph 30 which is not an agreed part of the Report, should be accepted but that paragraph 30 should be rejected in toto. We do not want a constitution with paragraph 30 in it whether put in by the Colonial Office or by an elected Government, if the Member for Cairnhill wins the by-election and if that is the wish of the people, then he can put in paragraph 30. I believe that the people of Singapore, whatever the view of the Member for Cairnhill, will not support this.

Fourth, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is to be appointed by the Singapore Government advising Her Majesty's Government to advise the Queen and that is the meaning of "after consultation with". To suggest that Her Majesty's Government appoints this Malayan-born who could be an expatriate is fantasy.

The difference between the Member for Cairnhill's approach to this problem and my Party's approach is this. As far as the Member for Cairnhill is concerned, a new constitution should be the end of the road. He is satisfied either if he has got merdeka with foreign affairs and defence permanently in the hands of the British or if Singapore becomes a United Nations' Asian Headquarters, something like Shanghai was, with everybody having extra-territorial rights, a prostitute to be ravished by every sinner in the world. That was his objective but because he knows the feeling for merger is strong, lip service is paid to merger in the indefinite future. Our attitude is that this constitution will bring the Federation closer with Singapore, that this is a constitution which recognises the hard facts-

Mr Marshall: The prostitution.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: To the Federation?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: This is a step in the right direction - a half-way house - from which we go to freedom with the Federation. Let us face facts, Sir.

Finally, whatever happens, we shall campaign for this constitution as a half-way house and if we can get this constitution without paragraph 30, we will have advanced a step forward in the right direction - in the direction of one State, United Malaya. That is my Party stand. That is the issue on which we shall fight in Tanjong Pagar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the amendment in the name of the Member for Cairhill.

3.03 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, all of us were treated to a play to the Gallery.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister-

Mr Marshall: Only the Straits Times can say that.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has started off on the wrong foot. Will he please withdraw that expression?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: As you please, Sir, I withdraw that, Mr Speaker. For one moment yesterday, I thought that this House was turned into a court of law, a jury with all the Assemblymen sitting down and with a prosecutor prosecuting some poor unknown accused person.

The Member for Cairnhill referred to the stony silence that greeted the Merdeka Mission which came back from London. Yes, he referred to the boos and to the cries of "Merdeka!", dubbed in. The boos were directed at me. At least, I had the courage to face them. Where was the Member for Cairnhill? Had he the courage to stand up before them and receive the boos? No. He was away in Batu Pahat doing duty to some Malayans in the Federation of Malaya. He objected to shouts of "Merdeka!" being dubbed in because it happened to be the voice of the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Again, he referred to the good Chinese school students of Singapore. He referred to them as "a pot of gold" or words to that effect. Members will remember that in this very House, he referred to those students as children sick with chicken-pox. They are now no more sick! They are pure gold now! But at least I am consistent. I have been saying that I forbid pupils from taking part in politics and I do say it now. Even with any election in front of me. I will still be consistent and say that.

The Member for Cairnhill also said that we could have elections in July this year. Now, I will refer to a portion of his speech made on 10th March at the Kong Hwa School, a place which is not suitable for political activities or for political speeches. Here is what he said:

"The proposed new constitution provides for 51 elected Members and the creation of the State of Singapore. For the constitution to come into force putting an end to colonial rule in internal affairs there must be therefore a newly elected Assembly. We cannot create citizens in the State of Singapore until the State of Singapore is in being. Therefore, to give voting rights to non-domiciled aliens before the new constitution comes into force means to create what U.M.N.O. and P.A.P. call "second-class citizens" under the proposed law which was rejected in 1955. It means that there must be an oath of exclusive loyalty to the colony of Singapore and not to the independent State of Singapore."

Further:

"What is the objection to elections in 1959? The objection is simply this, that until the new elections take place, the new constitution cannot take effect and the postponement of elections therefore means quite simply the postponement of merdeka, new life for the Rendel Constitution and the present Assembly and the prolongation of colonial rule for a further two years."

Now we are told that we can have elections in July 1957. Now, Sir, we can see what contradictions the Member for Cairnhill has made.

Mr Marshall: You only see. You do not understand.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I listened for more than two and a half hours in silence to the wonderful speech of the Member for Cairnhill and I think that there should be enough decorum and dignity in this House for me to expect the same treatment.

The Member for Cairnhill also said that the Chief Minister had to apply the Whip on this national matter. I am not coming to the aid of the Chief Minister in this matter but I wish to inform the House of the fact that when I received the letter of resignation from the Member for Cairnhill, I did not consult the Chief Minister. I brought it to the Central Committee and it was a unanimous vote, with not one dissenting voice, to accept the resignation. So, the Chief Minister did not, in fairness to him, apply the Whip either through me or through the Party and as a matter of fact, the application of the Whip should have been decided not by the Party of the Labour Front but by a Parliamentary Committee.

I think that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has torn to bits the suggestion that we can register the prospective citizens in about six weeks and that another six weeks may be required to put the names on the electoral rolls and for objections, etc. I think that the Hon. the Chief Minister will explain and prove that this is just wishful thinking and impossible.

Coming to the subversion paragraph, we signed the Report in opposition to that paragraph because then we had no mandate from our Party. None of us had a mandate and we thought that we were right in opposing that condition. That condition was an imposition on us. Her Majesty's Government has the power still to impose such a condition on Singapore and we intended to come back to get our Party stand on this matter. We did not rush out and make our plans without consultation with the Party. We came back and at least I had a consultation with my Party. Our stand is this: We oppose it because we think that we can fight the subversive elements ourselves. The Labour Front at least has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to take action against any subversive elements. That is shown in our action in October 1956 and therefore we say we oppose it because we think that without falling back on the Colonial Office we can fight the subversive elements in our own way and in our time.

3.12 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been treated to nearly four hours of a very long speech by the Member for Cairnhill on this motion. When we reflect on all that he said in those four hours and try to get the substance of what he said, I think we shall find that there is very little of any value in what he said yesterday and this morning and that is because he has looked upon the whole subject with a jaundiced eye. He has always been very prone in his nature to look on one side of the problem and when his heart or mind is taken up by a subject or by the complaints of a certain class of people, he is apt only to concentrate on that class of people and forget the rest of Singapore. The way he spoke would be admirable in a court of law when he is defending a man who might lose his life, but it is absolutely useless to speak in such an emotional manner in this House where the primary duty is not for interest of one section of the people - it may be a very small section of the people - but for all the people as a whole and for the benefit of Singapore in particular.

He claims to have been speaking for the "people of Singapore"; which people? To us, he is a lone voice. "Where were the people to shout and welcome the delegates home when they came back? Only silence and cold contempt." Whom do we represent in this House, all the Parties? And the various Parties, I think, do represent quite a good proportion of the people of Singapore. Yet we count for nothing! He was not there, he was not in the procession to see what reception the delegates received; yet he could spend half an hour describing the "cold contempt" that was accorded to this delegation!

Sir, happiness or satisfaction can be expressed in two ways: one, with jubilation or unnecessary emotion, as the ex-Chief Minister has always done; the other is to feel calm satisfaction and contentment, which is the way we want the people of Singapore to accept the new constitution which has been granted to us. For the Member for Cairnhill, what difference does it make if a few windows get broken, a few heads get broken, and a few lives are lost, so long as there is jubilation, there are shouts of "Merdeka!"? Nothing! We have seen that; we have experienced that. As I said, at the last meeting in London, all the delegates to the conference agreed amongst themselves that there should be no rally in Singapore because it might lead to incidents again. However, if our demands were not satisfied that time, then we would support a rally of protest. Well, that is the reason for the "cold and stony silence".

Now, I come to the question of the allegation of the Member for Cairnhill that our Mission has been an absolute failure, the agreement a sell-out of the people of Singapore. We will have to go into some detail and I shall prove that he is wrong, completely wrong, that you can only regard it as a failure if you look upon every act, every sentence, every paragraph in this document with fear, suspicion, prejudice and contempt. After all, what did we achieve? We have achieved everything which we set out to get. We knew what we wanted and we knew what we could get. What we got this time is more than what the ex-Chief Minister would have got if the Secretary of State for the Colonies had agreed to reopen the talks after the talks had failed the previous time. I do not think anyone in this House, or any other Member of the previous delegation, did more than I to try to hold the previous talks and prevent them from failing. At the very last moment, when the ex-Chief Minister had refused to accept the terms of the British Government, I got up and said, "Do not let us take any step which will make it impossible to discuss this matter again. Let us sleep over it tonight." But I was brushed aside. Then, on the way out, in a moment of vexation, he issued a very venomous release to the world Press. Yet immediately after that, when we had returned to our hotel, he again summoned us down; we were all asked to get together again to try to reopen the talks. Sir, there are certain things which one can do, but there are certain things which cannot be done - after the venomous attacks on the British Government, not one of us in the delegation felt that we could be humiliating enough to crawl back and ask for the talks to be reopened. Even if the talks had been reopened, I am quite sure we could never have got more than what is contained in this Paper today. The principal reason why the previous talks broke down was because the Member for Cairnhill would not accept a British chairman of the Internal Security Council with a casting vote. If we had gone back that day and the talks had been reopened, would we have got any more? That was the very point which was not acceptable to us; but here, we have overcome it, we have accepted a compromise whereby the deciding member is our friend a Minister from the Federation. And we are happy to leave this very important matter in his hands because, being a neighbouring country, we are as one, if not legally, then as a matter of contact; and we are quite sure that, when it comes to a show-down, the Minister of the Federation on this Council will take our side, unless our demands are impossible.

Now, under paragraph 24, we have been given complete assurance that Her Majesty's Government's intention is that the new constitution should confer upon Singapore Ministers full responsibility for maintaining internal law and order, and preventing subversion. That is an over-riding paragraph. Then, under paragraph 26, we have, what the Member for Cairnhill has alleged, given back everything to the British Government, because sub-paragraph (ii) states that one of the functions of the Council is to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security. But surely this paragraph must be read in conjunction with paragraph 24; we are given overall powers, and paragraph 26 deals with the powers of the Council.

Mr Marshall: Read paragraph 25.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member for Paya Lebar please continue?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: That is if you choose to read things in their context without a jaundiced eye. Now, there is also the complaint on paragraph 40, under which if we went against the wishes of the British Government. Her Majesty's representative here could tell the Yang di-Pertuan Negara what to do, and it should be carried out. Well, that is a step which could and would be taken only when Singapore is in extremis, when there is an absolute danger of chaos. By this paragraph, we are giving a chance to Her Majesty's Government to advise us what to do, and to try to prevent us from having our constitution being revoked. I do not think that that is too big a sacrifice for us to make.

I now come to the demand of the Member for Cairnhill for immediate elections. There is a good saying about doing things in haste and repenting at leisure. Apparently experience of this nature has not benefited the Member for Cairnhill. We should not jump into an election by just using identity cards (with all the mistakes in the system) for registering voters, and without being more adequately prepared. We know that the identity card system is not perfect, that it needs many amendments. If we are to use that system as a basis for elections, checks and cross-checks will have to be made, and the time taken to do this to hold elections in the manner suggested by the Member for Cairnhill will only be a few months within the time needed to prepare for elections in a regular and proper way, in the way all Parties in this House are agreed.

We have seen what harm electioneering can do to Singapore if it is whipped up by emotionalism and political opportunism. We have already suffered enough. What the public in Singapore wants is a few more months or a year of steady government and orderly progress leading towards the introduction of the new constitution, not the jumping into an election at the demand and whim of the Member for Cairnhill.

There is only one thing with which I do agree with the Member for Cairnhill - and that is his stand that those who are detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance should not be allowed to fight an election.

Mr Marshall: Bravo!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: With that I agree. I say that detained people who have been given a chance to appeal to a tribunal of three judges should be debarred from causing any more trouble. After all, they are in the position of persons who have been sentenced by a court, for although they have not been tried publicly, their detention orders and papers have been vetted very carefully by three judges. What more can they want? If we were to allow them to take part in elections, this would in some respect reflect on the integrity and the trust we have put on the judges. To that extent, and to that extent only, I agree with the Member for Cairnhill.

On the other point of whether we should accept the ban imposed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I stand firm with the other Members of this House. I say that the ban is unacceptable to us because it is undemocratic. It was imposed upon us at the last moment. We could not have proper consultations with the Assembly in Singapore. Are we going then to blame our delegates for reserving the right to refer that ban, that demand, to us, to this House, to say whether we accept or reject the demand and condition of Her Majesty's Government that no one detained under the Public Security Ordinance should be allowed to contest an election?

Sir, I have no hesitation whatever in opposing the amendment proposed by the Member for Cairnhill. I say to our delegates on what they have brought back to us from London: Well done, and thanks!

3.31 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is wrong for the seconder of an amendment to keep silent and see the debate develop into a wrong angle. During these few days, the Press and social circles have said there is a big row in the Assembly, with one lone voice, that of the Member for Cairnhill, raised against the motion. He has moved an amendment reading:

"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".

Sir, is there anything wrong in principle with this amendment? If the Member for Cairnhill had moved it without so much emotionalism and bitterness, would not the amendment be considered a reasonable one, especially the second part - "nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution"? The Government Parties and also the P.A.P and Liberal-Socialists have stated they are for early - though not immediate - implementation of the new Constitution. The only difference, therefore, is in the words "immediate" and "early"; yet the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill led to such bitter argument.

The first part of the amendment "regrets". To many outsiders who are not interested in the welfare of Singapore, the debate may be fascinating and dramatical. But to me, it is most regrettable. I regretted the situation as far back as last year in London, when, at the most critical moment in the talks, I moved an adjournment to let the Singapore Delegation withdraw, to give it a last chance to find a way out. Sir, I still remember that I said, "Let us accept the offer - under protest. We have nothing with which to fight the strength of the United Kingdom. Let us take whatever is offered, even though it is 'half-baked'," as the ex-Chief Minister said.

As citizens of this commercial entrepot, we are bound to possess a bit of the practical business spirit. We therefore say that something is better than nothing. Why cannot we face facts? The British Crown adorns this House, looks on Members. Do we forget that our status is that of a colony? A few days back, the Member for Sembawang was very worried about the Admiralty beginning mass dismissals of local civilian workers at the Naval Base. This caused alarm to the Services Unions, as many people might become jobless. Yet, Sir, on a political principle, is it not a very happy event for us if the British Admiralty cuts down its base, as it would then mean a decline of the dominant imperial power? However, we cannot afford to lose the income provided by the British base here; we ask that Britain send more battleships here, to provide employment for Singaporeans. Without the British Navy, where will be the rice bowl for many thousands of Singapore workers?

Sir, these are all plain facts in front of us; yet we argue about shadows. Supreme power still lies in London. Britain not only has over-riding powers now, but even has the right to interfere in our internal affairs to maintain internal security. This is clear, yet the challenge of the Member for Cairnhill is criticised and the agreement appears to be happily received.

Sir, I was absent from the party to welcome home the Merdeka Mission. I put up a personal one-man protest; I repeated my stand of last year. How can one be happy in a nationalist struggle if an agreement is reached leaving external defence and external affairs still in the hands of the controlling power, of the enemy we are fighting? Britain imposed an unreasonable condition at the last minute - the ban on subversive elements standing for elections. Britain could be clearly shown to be unreasonable for trying to interfere in our internal administration. Whether subversive elements should be allowed to stand for elections or not is our business. Britain has clearly promised to grant Singapore complete internal self-government. Sir, I know my knowledge of the English language is poor, but I do know the meaning that "complete" means "full". Yet we are to have an Internal Security Council, although, with the help of Allah, a Minister from the Federation with a casting vote will sit on it to safeguard us. We conceded powers of external defence and external affairs, but we never promised Britain control over internal security, we never asked the British to be our saviours. We say, on matters connected with external defence and external affairs, we do not mind that they have a say; but we are against a permanent arrangement on an internal security council whereby the British should interfere in every detail of our internal administration. So why do we not take this opportunity to stir up, and to educate our masses to have strong nationalism and make a more realistic approach to our struggle in future? The most important point we can say is that we regretfully accept the agreement. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies had not imposed that ban at the last moment, the atmosphere would have been very friendly, Britain's attitude very sincere. But it is not sincere: it is not very co-operative. The ban was unreasonable, undemocratic; yet when the All-Party Delegation protested, the Secretary of State said we had to sign although we could make a note of our opposition.

The second point is that there is a lot of cause to say that we can only regretfully take note of the agreement. The Hon. the Chief Minister has told the House that we have achieved our mission. I remember I also heard the Hon. the Minister for Education say the same thing in Hokkien at the padang rally. But we will still be a colony with no hope of reaching dominion status. Yet, the Ministers very happily tell us, "We have got what we want. We have achieved everything." Sir, we can take note of what we have achieved but, at the same time, express regret at what we have not.

My reason why we should express regret is entirely different from that of the Member for Cairnhill, who spoke of "bitter failure" and "stony silence". I have my own reason for supporting the amendment. The first is that we must not sell out our national aspirations. We must not create a false impression in our people that we have already got what we want, that we will be happy and contented with what we have and that there need be no further struggle. The second reason is that we lost a chance of winning over the sympathy of our brothers in the Federation. We find Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Chief Minister of the Federation, very co-operative. Why cannot we have more faith in our brothers and sisters in the Federation? They support a merger, as has been mentioned by the Member for Tanjong Pagar; at least the Party Ra'ayat supports a merger. So if we can create the impression that the Singapore Delegation only regretfully accepts the agreement, we can win the sympathy of our brothers in the Federation; for we then indicate that we have only one aim, one hope - to be independent we must merge with the Federation. At present, most of the leaders in the Federation are against merger (but not the people of the Federation). By taking the agreement in such a very happy way, we have lost the chance of winning over the Federation, to create a good impression on our neighbours. As one Indian paper said, the people of Singapore seem satisfied with what they have, so why should anybody try to help them to achieve their national aspirations?

So, Sir, I have my own reason for supporting the amendment. It is simple and reasonable; it will render high and valuable service to this country if accepted.

I entirely disagree with the Member for Cairnhill's reason for condemning the agreement. I maintain my stand last year - that something is better than nothing, but we should always remember to keep alive our national aspirations among the people and try to win more sympathisers across the Causeway and in other South-East Asian countries.

Sir, I seek permission to refer to today's Free Press news on a by-election contest between the ex-Chief Minister, Mr Marshall, and the P.A.P. leader, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, stating that it may have very significant if not dangerous repercussions according to political circles. To me, this situation has developed because of the amendment. When the House adjourned yesterday, I spoke to a few Members, asked them how such a thing could come about. Did anybody think of the consequences? I have three reasons to oppose the by-election-

Mr Speaker: Order. We are not debating the by-election.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir. I thought the question of the by-election is connected with my comment on the amendment. Such a by-election would appear to have resulted from the moving of the amendment. Are we prepared to lose one of our brilliant Members, when there are so few in this Assembly? This morning, I told a Member that this Assembly could lose hundreds of Lim Cher Khengs but could not afford to lose the Member for Tanjong Pagar or the Member for Cairnhill. They are useful and we are proud of them.

I also thought of the repercussions of a by-election arising from the introduction of the amendment. The main motion is backed by all Parties, including the P.A.P. and the Labour Front. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar should lose the by-election - brought about by the amendment to the motion - it would mean that, indirectly, the people of Singapore had censured the Government, and the Government should resign. What will be the repercussions after that?

So, Sir, I seek your permission to convey my appeal to the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanjong Pagar to withdraw the challenges they have made. I also plead that especially the Trades Union Congress should try to do something to stop this great harm being done to the country.