CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question (27th 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).

Which Amendment was, 'After "(1)" to leave out "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".'-(Mr David Marshall).

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

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is indeed an unhappy moment in my life. I find myself personally attacked many times by the Member for Cairnhill in his lengthy but rather tiresome speech. I am unhappy not because I was unjustly attacked, I am unhappy because my ex-leader, to whom I have given all my loyalty, a loyalty which he himself has publicly acknowledged, has suffered such a mental setback as to cause him to make a spectacle of himself and thus lose the respect of his friends who were his colleagues not so long ago. In my opening speech I paid a tribute to the Member for Cairnhill as the man who blazed the trail for constitutional advance and that tribute was received with acclamation in this House. When he was the leader of the All-Party Mission to London last year, Sir, he fought hard, he fought vigorously, and it would now appear that the mental strain he went through is now having its adverse effects on him. This is indeed a sad day for me and for my colleagues. If tears could wash away the shame that has befallen upon us, I would weep - Sir, I would weep. I would not have stood up to reply to the attacks if they were just heaped upon me alone; but when he tried to sneer at the good work of the All-Party Delegation and to ridicule my Ministerial colleagues who were his ex-colleagues, I would be failing in my duty, as a leader, if I did not stand up to reply to the malignant, to the scurrilous, to the unjust attacks-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chief Minister is becoming unparliamentary. I think I cannot allow the word "scurrilous".

The Chief Minister: I withdraw that word, Sir. He must forgive me because I speak with great emotion. Sir, I said I would be failing in my duty, as a leader, if I did not stand up to reply to the unjust attacks, the unjust abuse levelled at them by the Member for Cairnhill.

Sir, his plea for an immediate election is based on his unfounded allegation that the All-Party Delegation has made a mess of its job and that an immediate election will help to clear up the mess. Sir, I cannot see where the All-Party Delegation has made a mess of it at all. Before we left Singapore, we had a clear mandate from this Assembly and we have now come back with that mandate fully satisfied. If there is a mess, Sir, it is a mess made by the last delegation, and the present delegation has helped to clean up that mess. He said, Sir, that the introduction of the new constitution could be effected by means of an Order in Council. He pointed out that previously the British Government had agreed to back the constitution by an Act of Parliament. It is clear, Sir, that the mind of the hon. Member has been set to find fault with what we brought back, and on his fault-finding, he failed to read paragraph 52 carefully. Paragraph 52, Sir, the first few lines of the first sentence clearly say that "the constitutional arrangements set out in this Report will require the authority of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament". Paragraph 53, Sir, explains the reason for the enforced delay in introducing this legislation'. This is another reason why it is not possible to hold immediate elections.

The Member for Cairnhill has asked whether I would agree to an adjournment of this sitting without a vote being taken, and he added by saying that we need not worry because our seats are safe. Sir, as leader of the All-Party Delegation, I have consulted the Parties concerned. They cannot agree to this request. Moreover, Sir, this very important issue should not be left undecided. I said in my opening speech that if the motion - my motion - is adopted in this Assembly, it would set the machinery in motion to put into operation the first part of my motion; and as far as the second part is concerned, it would be my duty to get in touch with the Secretary of State with a view to asking him to reconsider the condition which he has himself imposed.

The Member for Cairnhill said all this talk about a Delimitation Committee was unnecessary, or not right, because he himself knew that there was already a Delimitation Committee in being. Sir, this is not so. At our sitting on the 5th of March, I said that the Government would appoint a Delimitation Committee with representatives of all Parties in that Committee so that the division of Singapore into 51 electoral wards can be done without any possibility of Members of the Opposition accusing the Government of dividing the wards in such a way as to make it favourable to the Party in power. There was a Delimitation Committee, Sir. It was a Government Committee. The Government had that Committee going because of the assurance that the Government has made that the general election would take place in August. Singapore had already been divided into 51 divisions. The machinery was set in motion and electoral rolls would have been ready by now had it not been for the fact that the All-Party Conference, after having given very serious consideration to the question of the date of effect of the new constitution, decided that it would be most unfair if all persons who will enjoy the citizenship rights should be deprived of the opportunity of exercising those rights in the choice of a new government and under the new constitution.

The Member for Cairnhill criticised, Sir, our demand which was agreed by the Secretary of State that the Head of State of the State of Singapore should be Malayan-born. He said that this was worse than what he had asked for. Sir, the All-Party Delegation felt that the Head of State should be a Malayan-born and not a Malayan, because a Malayan will include a large number of persons who are not Malayan-born. Sir, he accused us of hastily convening a sitting for the 5th of March when he was away from Singapore. He alleged that I was aware that he would be away. Sir, the All-Party Conference at its earlier meetings, when the Member for Cairnhill was a representative of the Labour Front in the conference, decided that a special sitting of this Assembly should be called on the 28th of February in order to debate on the recommendations of the All-Party Conference. Hon. Members were aware that there had been some delay in the All-Party Conference in reaching finality because of the misunderstanding that arose in regard to the demand of U.M.N.O. It was not possible to clear this misunderstanding until the 1st of March, and therefore the earliest sitting that could have been held before the All-Party Delegation left for London was the 5th of March.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill said that the All-Party Delegation was inadequate. I really cannot understand the reason for that charge. Before we left, as I said, Sir, we had a mandate from this Assembly. We came back with the mandate fulfilled. Where then was the inadequacy?

He said that on our return there was stony silence. As an Asian, Sir, I know that Asians are not boisterous in their welcome, that Asians are restrained in their behaviour, and it was therefore to be expected that there was to be not much of cheering, but because there had been no cheering - not much of it - it should not be taken to mean that there was silence, that the people of Singapore were shocked at the agreement reached by the All-Party Delegation. He said that the Labour Front had agreed to hold a mass meeting to welcome the delegation back, but that mass meeting was not held because the whole theme that we had been playing on to achieve success was All-Party unity. We went to London as a united party; we came back as a united All-Party, and the celebration should be on an All-Party basis. No political Party should try to steal the credit for the work done by the All-Party Delegation.

He then spoke about the publicity for the films that were shown in the cinema halls. Since then I have seen those films about the return of the All-Party Delegation and about the signing of the Report in London, and I, Sir, must say this - that I feel ashamed that those pictures do not include the man who blazed the trail for constitutional advance.

The Member for Cairnhill then criticised the presentation of banners and the picture of a sick lion to me, and this was described in the newspapers as organised by the T.U.C., but was later denied by the Secretary of the T.U.C. that it was not a T.U.C. show. Sir, I am not concerned whether it was a T.U.C. show or not a T.U.C. show. It was not arranged at all. Those people are known to me and they felt their happiness and they wanted to display their happiness by the presentation of banners and the picture of a sick lion. That picture, Sir, is hanging in my office, and I have been gazing at it, and I did not see that the lion is a sick lion. But I do say this, Sir, that lion should have been presented to the Member for Cairnhill when he returned last year, as he was the man who blazed the trail for constitutional advance. I do not deserve it at all.

The Member for Cairnhill then alleged, Sir, that we want to continue in office right up to our natural life, and in fact he went to the extent of alleging that he believed that we would want to continue beyond our natural life because, the way he read it, paragraph 54, if we are good with the Governor, we may remain in office for many, many more years; because, as he read paragraph 54, he said the date of introduction of the new constitution would rest with the Governor. Sir, it is usually the Governor who sets the date for the elections, but because I was thrilled by the unity of the All-Party Delegation, because I was thrilled that in a national issue all political Parties in Singapore could be united, I felt that it would be most unfair if the Government were to take advantage of this practice. I said that as the new constitution is the result of the united efforts of all Parties, it should be the Parties in this Assembly who should decide on the date of the next election, which would be the date of introduction of the new constitution, and I would be most surprised if the Governor, after receiving an Address from this Assembly, would not take heed of that Address.

The Member for Cairnhill, Sir, asked us to turn back the clock. He gave an account of his previous campaign. He said, "Then there was great shouting, there was great activity, and now there is stony silence. And yet these are the same people." Surely, Sir, all that great shouting, all that great excitement, all that great activity could only have been as a result of the activities of the political Parties in this Assembly. We became wiser after the event. We say if there is to be unity, and as unity was the only means of achieving success, no political Party should try to create a situation whereby unity might not be possible. It is as a result of experience we learned out of the last campaign, and if we gained by that experience, surely no one should now criticise that we should be just as foolish as the last delegation.

Sir, he referred to what he said was an attempt by the previous Governor, Sir John Nicoll, who had suggested an easy way out for him, and from that he seemed to feel that he was justified to draw a parallel with the condition laid down by the Secretary of State. He said unscrupulous politicians will not take the consequences and they will therefore "pass the buck" to the Secretary of State. Sir, this Government has been in office since June last year and this Government has not shirked its duty towards the people of Singapore when it took drastic action against subversive elements. We did it because we felt that it was needed of us, and we will continue doing it if it is needed of us. We do not have to hide behind the cloak of any colonial official.

The Member for Cairnhill then spoke bitterly about our crawling on our bellies to the Federation. I am indeed very happy to read in the Press that our friends the Federation Ministers did not pay much attention to this because they are aware that the representatives in this Assembly - when I say the representatives in this Assembly, it is perhaps with the exception of the Member for Cairnhill - have the best of goodwill and friendship for the Federation and they too have the best of goodwill and friendship towards us. Had it not been for their co-operation, had it not been for their assistance, as I said in my opening speech, the Internal Security Council could not have been brought into being and without it we could not have reached agreement on the whole issue.

The Member for Cairnhill then criticised what we have brought back as tiga suku busok merdeka. Maybe it is busok because we brought it back, it would not have been busok had it been otherwise. Sir, let us try to examine what we have brought back, in the light of what the Member for Cairnhill would himself have accepted, although his delegation had advised him not to do so. First of all, I would like to repeat in this Assembly that what we went to get is what we were instructed to get. There was this All-Party Conference planning strategy, and the Member for Cairnhill was a representative of the Labour Front on this conference. He was with us right up to the 22nd of February when we held our fifth meeting. Up to that time we had already disposed of almost everything except two points - the demand of U.M.N.O. and the date of introduction of the new constitution.

Mr D. S. Marshall (Cairnhill): And Internal Security Council.

The Chief Minister: The composition of the Internal Security Council was discussed at a very early meeting-

Mr Marshall: Composition of?

The Chief Minister: - and it was agreed that it should be three-three-one. Then on 25th February, I received a letter from the Member for Cairnhill tendering in his resignation as a Member of the All-Party Conference, because he felt that he had lost the confidence of the Labour Front. It was after the Labour Front annual conference, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill felt that he had to take such a line. I replied to him and appealed to him that he should continue to sit in this All-Party Conference so that we could have the benefit of his advice but he thought otherwise.

Now, why did the last Mission fail? We all know it, it is worth recounting here because of what has already been said and because the public is now puzzled by all these speeches that have been made in this Assembly. The last Mission failed because of the demand of the British Government for a Defence and Security Council and loaded in such a way that every time the British Government won and with such wide powers that the Defence and Security Council could interfere in the day-to-day administration of Singapore. In the very words of the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, he said, "The intention of Her Majesty's Government is to retain complete imperial powers over Singapore which would remain a colony." Those were his very words, that Singapore should remain a colony subject to these day-to-day overriding imperial powers and that was why he was so resentful. That was why he was in such a rage, and quite rightly so. I was in the same rage but then he himself explained to this Assembly, Sir, last June why he felt it necessary to take upon himself to reopen negotiations with the Colonial Office on a constitution which he described as "Christmas pudding with arsenic sauce". We went to that memorable tea party, Sir. I went although I squirmed and this is all what I get for my loyalty.

That proposal, Sir, last year for a Defence and Security Council with a British Chairman was unacceptable and should remain unacceptable and it was because the All-Party Conference felt that unless a compromise was found out of this difficulty, there could be no success. We therefore said to ourselves, "Must we give that decisive power to the British Government?" We said no in 1956 and we still say no in 1957. But then how should we get out of it? Then we thought of bringing the Federation into this Security Council. We say that insofar as the internal security position of Singapore is concerned, the Federation of Malaya is more closely interested in this situation than the British people could ever pretend or hope to make out a case. What is the power of this Internal Security Council, Sir? What was decided in London was that this Internal Security Council should be kept informed of the internal security situation day by day in the same way that the Defence and Security Council proposed by H.M.G. last year also wanted to be kept informed and this Internal Security Council would only take a decisive vote when a dispute arose between the Singapore Government and the British Government. It would be left to the Federation Minister to cast his vote after listening to both sides of the case and cast his vote in his absolute discretion.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill then turned to the paragraphs on internal security. He read out to us paragraph 26 (ii):

"to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security;"

and he tried, Sir, by his eloquence, to prove that "maintain" means "control". I have, Sir, looked up three dictionaries (Websters, Chambers and Oxford) and I found that "maintain" means "support". This Internal Security Council with the three Governments sitting on it will do all they can to help to support the maintenance of the organs of the internal security. What greater measure of internal security can there be than to have this in the new constitution?

The Member for Cairnhill, Sir, again touched on this thorny subject which he felt - and quite rightly so - rather strongly. "Singapore should no longer be under the control of the Colonial Office." I share that strong feeling with him but when I take into consideration the undeniable fact that even if it were to be the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office or any office in the British Cabinet, it would still mean the British Government but we are trying to fight for, shall we say, freedom against the British Government, not the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office or what other office - I do not know the setup there - and it was decided in the All-Party Conference (and he was a member then) that while we could press for it, we should not make an issue of it. Where then have we failed? Where then was the inadequacy as alleged by him?

The Member for Cairnhill, Sir, said, "It is simple. Let us have the elections quickly by a simple amendment of the Elections Ordinance." Why he said that is because he was under the mistaken belief - and he has many beliefs - that this new constitution could be introduced by an Order in Council. Paragraph 52 clearly says that it has to be backed by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament and paragraph 53 states:

". . .it would not be possible to introduce the necessary United Kingdom legislation during the current Session of Parliament;"

but the British Government had promised to do their best to introduce it at the next Session and this will be, I think, in November. It is not so easy-

Mr Marshall: I wonder if I could draw the attention-

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Marshall: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Chief Minister will give way.

The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Marshall: I thank the Hon. the Chief Minister, Sir. May I ask him to read the last sentence of paragraph 54 to which he is referring?

The Chief Minister: Sir, I am afraid that the Member for Cairnhill is still suffering a mental strain. I have not said paragraph 54 at all. I said paragraphs 52 and 53.

Mr Marshall: Read the last sentence of paragraph 52.

The Chief Minister: After the Act has been passed, then it would be contained in an Order in Council. Before the Act has been passed, how could it be contained in an Order in Council! Sir, I am not a lawyer. I am just a poor ordinary clerk and sometimes I do find difficulty in understanding the English language. "You can introduce elections in three months by the simple process of just going through the identity cards and anyone who has ten years residence could be put on the electoral roll." Never mind about citizenship! What is loyalty after all'! Put them on and when you have the new constitution in, then go and check up on their loyalty and if they do not want to be citizens, out they go but by then they would have voted and put in people who might not want to be citizens of Singapore. We would then be in a real quandary. It has been pointed out, Sir, that the identity card system came into being in October 1948. That could not be ten years but then the Member for Cairnhill amended it rather quickly. "It could be nine years. It could be eight years." But I have been advised, Sir, by the Statistics Department that it will take from five to six months to sort out all the identity cards and then to get their machines into action to produce the electoral rolls and after the electoral rolls have been produced, it would take about four months under the Elections Ordinance - if not four months, 101 days - for the electoral roll to be open for inspection, objections to be received and all sorts of procedure. Five to six months plus four months will be nine months. It could not be three months. But then if you said, "This Government particularly myself has broken my word to him when I assured him in this Assembly and in a personal letter that the Government would have general elections in August 1957," I was aware that such a criticism would be levelled at me and that was why at the sitting on the 5th March, I made it very clear to this Assembly that if there was to be any delay in the elections beyond August, the Assembly must take the full responsibility. I do not want to continue in office unnecessarily as Chief Minister, Sir. I have said almost everywhere and I say in this solemn hall that to be a Chief Minister is to suffer more than a human being at times can bear. I do not want it but the interest of the people of Singapore demands that I should make this sacrifice. I am happy to make it and I will make it and no ridicule levelled at me by any Member in this Assembly will deter me from doing my responsibility to my people. I have been doing public work for nine years. My house has been invaded from morning to night. I held it all quietly. I did not have to hold a weekly public session with members of the Press and photographers to show that I was really doing work for the people of Singapore. I do not have to do that, Sir. Deeds count and not words. Deeds count. I am indeed, Sir, most ashamed that I should give way to emotion. I have never done that. But this is much too much.

Sir, from all that I have said, it is therefore evident to this Assembly that I oppose the amendment.

10.47 a.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened very carefully to the various speeches in this House. Sir, you said that this is a very important debate, a debate which should have solemn silence with no interruptions and with no jeering. Unfortunately, in the past few days, we have been disturbed in that manner. It is not becoming to the dignity of this Assembly. We have heard very powerful oratory from the Member for Cairnhill, the eloquent speech from the Member for Tanjong Pagar and from various speakers.

Now, Sir, there are three issues involved in the debate on the amendment: if we got merdeka, should we have accepted it?; if not, what could be the consequences?; and elections. Now, Sir, the mandate to the previous All-Party Delegation was for full self-government, that is, merdeka, and that delegation could be called the Merdeka Delegation; but, Sir, the last All-Party Delegation went to London to seek internal self-government and not merdeka, it is a fallacy and it is wrong to say that it was a Merdeka delegation or that we got merdeka. We have not received anything of that sort.

Sir, on this platform, I have said very often that the colonial power is not going to give self-government on a silver tray to the people of Singapore. Also before the delegation left for London, I said that our demands were reasonable and that the United Kingdom should grant them but though the members of the delegation were honest and sincere in standing by the mandate we gave them, yet the colonial power - the master of diplomats (the Colonial Secretary) - sent them back with their hands and feet tied. Now. Sir, what did we get? Yes, we got high-sounding names like Chief of State, Commissioner for Britain and Prime Minister but who gets the real power? If you go through these paragraphs, Sir, at every stage the Chief of State has to consult the Commissioner for the United Kingdom. The Commissioner for the United Kingdom is a name but actually it is a British Resident according to the sense I make out from this Report. New names do not make any difference, it is the substance that makes the difference.

Now, Sir, on top of this, there is a suggestion of an agreement on the subversive paragraph but the All-Party Delegation says that it is not an agreement. Now, Sir, according to British justice, no one is guilty unless he is proved to be so. The best thing is to bring these people to trial. The public do not know what has been going on in privacy or in camera. We do not know. Possibly, the Government does know. Sir, on the other hand, do you really expect the United Kingdom to give up Singapore? I do not think so. Supposing you were in their shoes, would you do it as a colonial power? Singapore is the most strategic place in South-East Asia. The United Kingdom has Gibraltar, Malta, Aden - of course, they will have to get out of Trincomalee - and the only place in South-East Asia for the defence of their territories and their economic position and White Australia is Singapore, and then do you mean to say that they will leave Singapore? Personally, I never expected it. Yes, they will if they are forced to do so. Now, Sir, how can we force this colonial power to do so? We can do so with unity, with a struggle, and if we fight as one nation.

Mr Marshall: And justice.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: May I have the hon. Member's indulgence, please?

Mr Marshall: Sorry.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: India has done it with 80 years of struggle, fights, gaols, deaths, and so on, and they succeeded. They even boycotted the Cripps Commission when that great statesman first came to India. Well, that is history. Are we in that same position? Is Singapore largely populated and with a wide area? That is not so. What is our past history? It is only 130 years old and we only heard a few names which were in the political field before 1955. We are just beginning and we are proud of that. Sir, if what we have got is not satisfactory, what are we to do? Personally I think - and I said this in the last debate when the previous delegation returned empty-handed - that we should have accepted what was offered to the maximum. We should have taken advantage of it and things would have been different. We would not have the sad spectacle of the colonial power running this Government or the Government running the government with the aid of ex-officio and nominated Members. That would have ended long ago.

Now, Sir, the only alternative is to accept what is offered. England is in no position to refuse us even if we were to refuse to accept the subversive paragraph. She dare not. Do not forget that the British people are the only white people left in South-East Asia. Look from Suez to Japan. Of course, you have America holding an economic stronghold and even fighting Britain in this sphere. They will give in. They try to hold on as long as they can; even for a year, a month, a day or even for a single second but it is in our hands whether we should allow them to do so.

Now, Sir, the new constitution provides for 51 elected representatives but the elections should be held in a democratic way. Britain allows free elections in that country but not here. But there is a remedy: it is only for the first elections and the first elections can be held - I will come to that - as early as possible and you can dissolve your Assembly within six months or within six days.

Sir, we started with the Rendel Constitution in April 1955. Within two months, the Member for Cairnhill, who was the Chief Minister then, put up a strong fight and made the Colonial Office give way in many respects. Also, the United Kingdom conceded further talks. Now, Sir, this Constitution lays down that it shall not stand beyond four years but that we can reopen the talks any time we like within the four years, provided the right people are elected to the Assembly, not self-seekers, and if they have got the will to do it, they can resign and say, "Look here, U.K., you continue. You want this again." This can be done and I think that that is the shortest way. Even the P.A.P. has watered down their past demands. I do not think that the ex-Chief Minister was responsible for the last failure.

The P.A.P. was backing the Chief Minister at that time. They were not satisfied with anything less than that and they did not accept less than that, but now they have. The only possible explanation is that they consider this the maximum and will try for more later on. I think this is a diplomatic way of getting things done as we are just a new nation with new citizenship rights.

Sir, on internal security, I think we must accept the present arrangement as being better than the one offered last year, because we have three-three membership on the Council with a Minister from our neighbour and friend, the Federation, having the casting vote. As the people of the Federation and Singapore are one and the same, I am sure the Federation Minister will take the side of Singapore and not the colonial power.

But, Sir, even after this provision, I do not think we are getting real freedom at all. Definitely not. You will never get it, for Singapore is a strategic base to England. They will try to keep Singapore by one means or another. But there is a way out, the only way, and that is to merge with the Federation. It is the only way; there is no other. We do not know whether the Federation has a gentleman's understanding with the United Kingdom or a written agreement which lets the Federation get its freedom but leaves Singapore in British hands. I do not know; nothing has been disclosed. But in diplomacy, everything is possible. And it is possible that even if we merge, England will still demand the use of Singapore for defence purposes but in other respects - external affairs, trade, culture, internal security - we will be quite free. I think it will be more becoming to do that than to remain in their hands, as we will be even under the new constitution, because at every step you will have to consult the British High Commissioner stationed here, and accept his advice. Even in trade we will not be free. Why should this be so? They will control internal security and defence and external affairs. Why should they also have a say in trade? This city exists on trade. Why should we have to consult the United Kingdom on it? And why should we also have to concede control of cultural relations?

However, there is, as I have said, no other alternative in hastening the end of this colonial period. I must say that there is a lot in what the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanjong Pagar said. We may not agree with their political views in some respects or in many respects, but some points they make can be for the common good of Singapore and there is no reason why we should not accept them. On citizenship and immediate elections, for example, I personally do not think that if the Government have the will to hold elections quickly, we need wait beyond the end of 1957. We are now at the end of the fourth month of the year and we have therefore a full eight months left. If Government want to hurry and if all the Parties want Government to hurry, they can hold elections very easily. The Member for Tanjong Pagar mentioned six months for the registration of voters. How can this be done? Of course there are 250,000 people involved and there will be 51 constituencies, but you have a powerful Chinese Chamber of Commerce to help you out. I would suggest that the period of six months can be cut to three or four. If that can be done, I think elections can easily be held on 1st January, 1958. I think this will be accepted by all.

Now, Sir, let us read paragraph 54 on page 15:

"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 at this stage, but that it should be brought into force on a date after the 1st January, 1958."

The first condition is that elections should be held before the new constitution comes into force, and it can be after 1st January, 1958. Cannot we set our hearts and minds - I think that will satisfy everyone - to work so that we can hold elections early in 1958? (That is in January, not April or May, as envisaged by the Member for Tanjong Pagar.) I am sure that when the All-Party Delegation meet again, they will consider this point.

Sir, personally I am very unhappy about the present Government. It is not a democratic one. I thought that during the Marshall period (not that I was against the Member for Cairnhill personally) because when votes were taken, there were three Officials and four Nominated Members to say "yes"; but they carried on although they were in a minority. Yes, you should shorten your time for nomination and new elections.

Sir, Government expenditure has been top-heavy, with so many Ministers and Assistant Ministers. I am talking on the amendment, Sir, on the question of immediate elections. Now, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister, in the debate in which he got a mandate, said - as he says even now - that his Ministers were feeling the strain of office. I cannot understand what this strain is. Three Ministers went to London in the All-Party Delegation, and while they were absent, the Minister for Health also left Singapore for Japan. Four Ministers were away at the same time.

Mr Speaker: Order. I really cannot see how those remarks are relevant to the motion before the House, which is in connection with the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I will explain that very easily. The amendment reads "nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of"; I want immediate implementation of what we are given, and that is what I am talking about, Sir. Why?-

Mr Speaker: Order. That does not make the Member's remarks in order or relevant to the motion. The whole amendment must be read together. The whole amendment is to insert "regretfully takes note of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference, and nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution." I cannot see how the fact that the present Government, in the view of the Member, is top-heavy, has anything to do with the Report or the amendment.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I do not want to argue with the Chair at all, but what I still hold is that if my comments do not apply in that case, they definitely do on the remarks made by the Hon. the Chief Minister in this debate today, that he is not anxious to continue very long as Chief Minister - and the Hon. the Chief Minister meant his colleagues together with himself.

Mr Speaker: Please continue on the amendment.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, my suggestion is this: Form an interim government between now and the next elections, an interim government with the minimum number of Ministers and no Assistant Ministers. That will save the country a lot of expenditure, and one of their main tasks will be to see that the elections are held at the earliest possible moment.

Sir, on citizenship for residents who have lived here for seven or ten continuous years, I think identity cards, passports and other records at the Chinese Protectorate (I do not know whether it is called by that name now) will provide the details required for registration. They have the records of alien Chinese and others, and these can easily be compiled if there is a will to do so.

Sir, I was told by my legal adviser when I was an active businessman that a lawyer wins half his case by courtesy and goodwill, and the other half by legal argument. During the debate which unfortunately has taken an exciting turn in the last three days, a challenge was made by the Member for Cairnhill. I hope he meant that he will oppose the Member for Tanjong Pagar at the new elections and not at an immediate by-election. Perhaps he made his challenge in the heat of the moment, when we are all apt to say things we never intend to. In many debates, I should at times have been the person most hurt by the remarks of the Member for Cairnhill, but, Sir, I never took them to be personal ones. As I said, sometimes we never mean what we say in excitement. I take what is good and best but ignore the others. If a by-election does not take place, a lot of expenditure will be saved to the country.

Sir, coming to the end of my speech, I offer the opinion that, in order to end this colonial farce, we have to discard the present constitution as early as possible. The only way is not to put off arguments, as again consultations may have to take place with the United Kingdom, entailing more delay. We should accept what we have obtained and fight for more while we see to it that elections are held as early as possible.

11.18 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, Friday was indeed a sad day for us on this side of the House, for we saw one who began by doing so much good for Singapore now trying to tear up something which his colleagues had achieved, instead of congratulating them on their success. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill on Friday set himself up as a champion of the "decent inarticulate people of Singapore", but he failed to tell us, or produce any evidence to show, how these people conveyed to him their opinion that it was "tiga suku busok merdeka" which the delegation brought back from London, that the mission had sold Singapore to the British colonialists - "sold the people to continued colonialism", those were his words. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that such an opinion has been expressed by these "decent inarticulate people", it must be assumed that it is rather presumptuous on the part of the Member for Cairnhill to set himself up as the sole champion of the people of Singapore, ignoring the fact that there are 24 other elected representatives in this House who think otherwise.

Mr Marshall: Why not wait till the by-election?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is a brilliant lawyer and, as is the practice with any brilliant lawyer when he addresses a jury - a group of laymen - he started off his arguments with a barrage of words. He built a vast edifice of words but what does that vast edifice hold in genuine, valid arguments? Sir, when I heard him for the first hour and a half, I thought, "We are sunk; the mission must have really failed." Hearing him admonish the delegation on their failure, Sir, I never expected to find that, instead of producing a lion of a case, he could bring out a mouse, a mouse created by his own fancy, a mouse existing only in his own imagination. Sir, I am not an eminent lawyer like the Member for Cairnhill. I am not a lawyer at all, but perhaps at this time, it is more to my advantage that I am not, because I do not let my imagination run wild.

Sir, the Member quoted extensively from the two Reports, the one presented by the present delegation and the other by last year's delegation. At the time the Member spoke, I did not have last year's Report with me, but having been a member of that delegation, the facts stood out very clearly in my mind. Sir, there are 13 Members of this Assembly who were in London in April and May last year, and they do not have to read reports to remember what transpired there. They went through heart-breaking moments and the memory of every single moment and day stands out vividly in their minds. But just out of curiosity, Sir, I dug up last year's Report to compare what the Member for Cairnhill said with what is contained in the Report. And this is what I found.

The first attack of the Member on the present Report was on the internal security arrangements. Paragraph 26 (i) on page 6 was read out:

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

The Member for Cairnhill did not dispute that. He said he was happy to consult, to learn from anybody. But he hotly disputed paragraph 26 (ii) :

"to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security:".

And the basis of his criticism that the mission had sold the people of Singapore to eternal colonialism (I am not sure whether he used the word "eternal") was because the Internal Security Council was to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Singapore Government concerned with internal security. Now, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also told us about his talk with Sir John Nicoll, when Sir John tried to persuade him to let the colonial officials pass the Emergency Regulations so that the elected Members would not get the blame from the public; the Member mentioned before once in this Assembly that he refused to hide behind the skirts of colonial officials. That same argument he has now used for refusing to accept the paragraph indicating that the United Kingdom Government does not wish subversive elements to take part in the first elections. Here again, his argument is that it is the duty of the elected representatives of the people of Singapore to ban subversives from standing for election, but he cannot accept a ban imposed by the colonial power. He cannot accept an imposition from the colonial power, neither can he accept hiding behind the skirts of colonial officials. But if you look at the Report of last year's mission, Sir, this is exactly what was offered and what the delegation, led by the Member for Cairnhill, was prepared to accept. If the United Kingdom Government had agreed then to a Federation Minister sitting on the Consultative and Advisory Council, last year's delegation were prepared to accept Orders in Council made by the colonial power, not by, for example, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who is to be a Malayan. Our mission, Sir, has therefore achieved something more. On the point which the Member for Cairnhill has been arguing about all the time, that this Internal Security Council is going to force us to acts which we do not like, Sir, if we are going to face our responsibilities squarely, it is better for us that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who will be Malayan-born, and not the United Kingdom representative, should carry out all acts required in the interests of internal security. I put it to Members: Which is less evil? Is it better for us to carry out those acts ourselves, or is it better to give the powers to the United Kingdom Government, as agreed to by last year's delegation? Then, Sir, on paragraph 26 (iii), it says:

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

This, says the Member for Cairnhill, means that colonial spies can pry into our affairs. But what was offered to and, in fact, accepted by the mission of last year? Footnote (iii) of last year's Report, page 69, reads:

"The arrangements proposed in paragraph (14) are on the understanding that, the High Commissioner would have on his staff a Liaison Officer who would have unrestricted access to the Singapore Police Force and such other facilities as would enable him to keep the High Commissioner, as Chairman of the Defence and Security Council, in day to day touch with the internal security situation"-

not external defence, Sir. So what is provided for in the present Report, paragraph 26 (iii), is in fact a lesser evil than the provision in last year's Report, a provision which would have been accepted had the United Kingdom agreed to a Federation Minister as the balancing power sitting on the Council. Last year's Report said "unrestricted access"; the present Report says "to ensure equal access".

Then the Member for Cairnhill attacked paragraph 40 of the present Report, page 10. In cases of external defence,

". . .the Chairman of the Security Council would also have the power to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to reserve the Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should then be obliged to do so."

The Member attacked this provision as another instance where the colonial power had the last say. Sir, the same provision is contained in last year's Report, in paragraph (22) of Annexure L, page 69:

"The High Commissioner normally to exercise his powers in respect of assent to bills in accordance with the advice of Ministers, but to be required to reserve for Her Majesty's pleasure any bill which in the opinion of the Defence and Security Council-"

mind you, the "Defence and Security Council", which was to have been a body weighted in favour of the United Kingdom- "prejudices the exercise of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities in the field of external defence and external affairs."

So there again you have the offer that was given to us. On the advice of the United Kingdom weighted body, all Bills which they considered as touching upon external security and external defence would have to be reserved for Her Majesty's Government's pleasure. In the present case, of course, the advice is given by a Malayan weighted body, a body on which the Federation Minister holds the balance of power. Which is better - I put it to you?

Then, Sir, we come to the contention: in the last constitutional talks there was no such thing as internal security. That was purely a matter of external defence.

Sir, if you look at the last delegation's Report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956) at page 52, Annexure I, paragraph (3) (c) says:

"The preservation or restoration of public safety or public order and the maintenance of essential supplies and services, to the extent to which they relate to matters referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this definition or to external affairs as defined in this subsection."

And paragraph (a) reads:

"The provision, construction, maintenance, security, staffing, manning and use of defences, equipment, establishments and communications for the naval, military or air security of any part of the Commonwealth (including the State of Singapore)."

Paragraph (b) says:

"The organisation, armament, control and discipline of, and the furnishing of supplies to, and transportation of naval, military and air forces of the Commonwealth (other than forces raised by the State of Singapore)."

This, Sir, means that in every Bill there could have been control exercised by the United Kingdom High Commissioner or by the United Kingdom Government on the advice of a Council which was weighted with United Kingdom interests. Sir, that is not only my opinion, but that is the opinion of the ex-Chief Minister himself and of the whole delegation.

On page 72 of last year's Report, paragraph 3 says:

"The suggestion that Her Majesty's Government should have overriding powers to legislate by Order in Council and emergency regulations through their High Commissioner in the extremely wide fields indicated, after consideration by the Defence and Security Council on which they have the majority vote, is wholly repugnant to the Delegation...".

Then at page 14, at the top, it says:

"The general reservation of Imperial Legislative Powers covered practically every field of activity in the territory...".

And here now we are trying to differentiate between the Internal Security Council and the External Defence and Security Council and why there should be an Internal Security Council; but what in fact was the Council that was mooted at the last meeting was an all-controlling Council which controlled both. That was the deciding factor on borderline cases of what comes within internal security and what impinges on external defence.

Sir, the hon. Member's arguments have all the time been based on what was offered and that the present delegation had got far less than what was offered. But of course the Member will not forget those memorable days, especially the day before the talks broke down, when he called a hurried meeting at No. 10 Carlton House Terrace and put his idea across that the talks could still be saved if we agreed to a new proposal, and that was that the Federation Minister should be the deciding voice on this Council. He will not forget, Sir, how he went and begged the Secretary of State to accept this proposal and how anxiously we waited for him to hear the result of that meeting. Sir, if the Secretary of State had accepted that proposal, it would not have given something more than what the present delegation has achieved. In fact, we would still have been given something less. We would then have had a Council which was weighted by the Federation Minister as it is now, but a Council that is only advisory, whereas now the Council is executive. It carries out what it thinks should be done. In the other case, the Council would still have been advisory. The executive power to carry out would have been with the United Kingdom Government to make Orders in Council above our heads and above the heads of the elected representatives. Then again the Advisory Council might give advice which is to our interests but which is not to United Kingdom interests and the United Kingdom would not carry it out.

Sir, no one disputes the fact that what the present delegation has achieved is not independence. No one says it is independence. In fact, the delegation never set out with the idea of achieving independence, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has clearly pointed out. In fact, one of the most bitter arguments which the last delegation had was wherein lay the sovereign power, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has told us.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill recounted that there were three independent countries - Honduras, the Lebanon and Paraguay - which were slightly larger than Singapore in population and there were many independent countries which were smaller than Singapore in population, and there were so many other independent countries which had less revenue than Singapore has, and therefore there was a good case for Singapore to be independent amongst the nations of the world. But one thing the Member for Cairnhill forgets, Sir, and that is size. Size is very significant, Sir, when it comes to thinking of independence. Size matters because your economy is governed to a large extent by the size of the land you have. Without land you cannot have a basic economy, and without a basic economy, you cannot carry out the functions of a sovereign State. You will not have the resources to provide for your own defence. There are a lot of things which are required of a sovereign State, and therefore our destiny should lie towards merger with the Federation. Sir, we are an island which has been politically cut off from the mainland, and the only way we could achieve independence is by merger with the Federation and nothing should be done to jeopardise the chances of such a merger. This constitutional advance is not an end. It is only a transitional stage until such time as, by merger, Singapore becomes part of the Federation. Sir, we are today in a very ridiculous position, a small speck on the map, a tiny island of 225 square miles having a government of its own; having Ministers. It is a ridiculous situation, Sir, I suggest. By right we should be part of the Federation. If it had not been for political necessity of the United Kingdom - I do not know what they had in mind - we would probably have been part of the Federation by now.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also mentioned that it is fashionable now to become pro-colonialists. It is not so, Sir. It was perhaps fashionable before to go star-gazing, Sir, to dream of things which, due to our limitation of size and population and resources, we could never achieve. The fashion now is to be more practical, to get what we can manage, and to work for something more, and that can only be done by merging with the Federation.

Sir, there was an attack made by the hon. Member on the appointment of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara being a Malayan-born. I considered, Sir, that "Malayan born" offers a much smaller field than "Malayan". First of all, there is no proper definition yet of what and who is a Malayan. I read in the Press yesterday of somebody, not a Malayan in the real sense of the word, who has been here for 32 years and who has amassed a great amount of wealth, a million dollars, or perhaps it was $5 million, and he derided all this talk about merdeka; and yet that man can claim to be a Malayan, because he has been here for 32 years. If the delegation had said "Malayan", the field would have been more wide open than it is at present when the delegation has accepted "Malayan born" as the guiding factor. The Member for Cairnhill was afraid that under "Malayan born", Her Majesty could appoint a European who was not a genuine Malayan, but the same thing could happen if the word had been "Malayan" and not "Malayan born". There are so many Europeans who are Malayans, but our guiding principle is a ten-year qualification for citizenship -

Mr Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Marshall: Sir, the argument was not that the word should have been "Malayan", but that it should have been on the advice of the Singapore Government.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has had experience as Chief Minister and he knows full well that these are legal phrases and that normally it is the practice always to consult and get advice from the Government concerned. That is so even in smaller things and not only in big things like appointing a Head of State. There is always consultation, and advice is asked for.

The Member also mentioned that the Colonial Office was repugnant to us and I admit that it is so to all of us, but I must remind him that when he brought up a motion on this subject at the Labour Front annual conference I queried the word "acceptable" (he used the phrase "not acceptable") and said that it should be changed to desirable, and he made it clear that the word "acceptable" was to be regarded flexibly and not to be carried to the point of breaking down the talks, and then I withdrew my objection, so that I do not see that that is a point on which he could now criticise the motion.

One last word, Sir. The hon. Member mentioned that Singapore could be put under the control of the United Nations. Sir, at this time when all Asians are looking with interest to what is happening in Egypt, which is trying to keep the Suez Canal Zone free from international control, that suggestion from the Member for Cairnhill does not come at the right moment. What would happen if you had international control in Singapore? I would not like to think of it. Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar has aptly described what would happen. Sir, I therefore oppose the amendment.

11.45 a.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate in this Assembly today is concerned with two questions. These are:

(1) Has the All-Party Constitutional Delegation to London abided by the principles contained in the All-Party White Paper which was presented before this House at the last sitting in March?

(2) Does this House support the stipulation by Lennox-Boyd that detainees under the Public Security Ordinance cannot take part in the first election under the new constitution?

On the first question, Sir, if a study is made of the White Paper drawn up by the All-Party Merdeka Conference and the report of the results of the constitutional conference in London, it can be seen that there has been no essential departure from the mandate which this House gave the mission before it left for London, excepting, of course, the notorious restriction on detainees.

Compared with the Rendel Constitution, Sir, the concessions which have been made by the Colonial Office at this second Merdeka Conference represent an advance. However, it must be clearly recognised that the results achieved do not in any way mean that we have achieved independence, as the Federation has done. No State can be independent so long as its external defence and foreign affairs are under the control of the imperial power. Further, as long as external defence is in the hands of the Colonial Office, then there will always be the argument that the preservation of internal security is pre-requisite to the maintenance of external defence. It was precisely this point which caused the breakdown of the first Merdeka Conference. Under these circumstances, Sir, the best possible solution was the setting up of an Internal Security and Defence Council consisting of three Singapore Ministers, one Federation Minister, and three British members. It has been quite obvious that the consent of the Federation Government to sit on this Council was a vital factor in the successful conclusion of Singapore's second constitutional conference and preventing a repeat deadlock of last year. For us in Malaya, Sir, this gesture of the Federation Government is a happy omen. The time is not distant when Singapore and the Federation will be united as one independent country.

What is the net gain of the second Merdeka Conference? It is this, Sir. In future this Assembly will be filled with the elected representatives of the people, a Cabinet to be drawn from our own people, and with power to formulate policies on internal affairs.

Finally, we come to the second problem which faces this House today. If we believe in a democratic system of government, then we cannot accept the restriction on political detainees taking part in the next election. We oppose the last-minute clause thrown by the Colonial Secretary at our Merdeka Delegation. We oppose it on principle, Sir. It is undemocratic. Until a man's guilt is proved in a court of law, we should not penalise him in this way. As far as I can see, what the Colonial Office has offered us is a durian. The fruit inside is the new constitution. The thorny skin outside is the restricted clause on detainees taking part in the next election.

Mr Marshall: What about the smell?

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Good smell. Does the Colonial Office expect us to eat the skin as well as the fruit? We decidedly will not eat the skin. Sir, my Party therefore support the stand of the All-Party Delegation and oppose the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill.

11.52 a.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, anyone who has been listening to the eloquent speech made by the Member for Cairnhill, has watched the fine performance made by him before this House, and subsequently heard his arguments torn to shreds bit by bit, would possibly have come to the conclusion that the Member for Cairnhill might have been reciting the dialogue of an act instead of making a speech on the motion before the House. Unfortunately, Sir, his power of reasoning does not equal his art of oratory, otherwise we would have been spared the ordeal of hearing his four-hour speech of distorted views.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not over-ruled the word "distorted" up to now, but in this context I think I must do so.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I respectfully withdraw it. Sir. The delegation has obtained all that is required in the mandate, and although the Member for Cairnhill was with us in five out of the seven meetings held by the All-Party Merdeka Conference called by the Chief Minister to discuss the mandate for the London Delegation, I do not recollect an instance where he had put up those points which he made in his speech, nor had he opposed the agreement reached. Neither have I seen any statement voicing his opposition to the mandate since his return from Borneo. Since the hon. Member wishes us to believe that he has so much of the interests of the country at heart, why did he not return to Singapore on or before the 5th of March?

Mr Marshall: I was never told.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Anyway, he should have known about it. He should have given to this House his expert opinion. Instead he chooses to blame this House for not lengthening the debate to suit his personal convenience. In this respect, Sir, I am reminded of a page in the history of China of a man by the name of Ju. He lived in China 3,000 years ago. This man was entrusted with the duty of alleviating the flood of the Yellow River Basin. It took him ten years to complete the job. During this period he passed his house three times. He could have taken the opportunity to visit his family, but he did not. He considered that his duty towards the State should supersede that of his own, and yet here we find the Member for Cairnhill today choosing to go to Borneo in Singapore's hour of need to seek for personal gain.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how that is relevant to the motion. The fact that the Member for Cairnhill goes to Borneo or any part of the world cannot have any relevance.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I was replying to the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, the reason for doing it. Is he the man whom he purports to be, or is he the man who says in his heart, "I, the Member for Cairnhill, the first Chief Minister of Singapore, leader of the 1956 delegation to London, willing to stoop at the feet of Nehru, and have shaken hands with Chou En-lai - I do not agree with the agreement. How dare the present Chief Minister, who has untactfully admitted in public that he was a clerk, and will be a clerk all his life, do something which I did not do." All this, Sir, I can sum up in two words - sour grapes, and nothing else.

As a member of last year's delegation, I would like to congratulate the Chief Minister and the members of his delegation for the good work done. They have succeeded where we failed. This success, Sir, I understand, has been due to the complete unity in the All-Party Delegation in London, and I hope this unity will prevail in this House on all future issues of national importance.

Our Party is also glad to note that, in spite of paragraph 30 of the Report, the delegation has signed the Report instead of coming home empty-handed or called a Press conference and begged Lennox-Boyd to open the negotiations again. They do it because they are realistic. They do it because, unlike the Member for Cairnhill, they do not believe in miracles in this atomic age. They believe that a small house is better than no house, although everyone of us would like to live in a palace if we could afford one.

Mr Marshall: Otherwise in a pig sty.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Even that is better than no house. Apart from this paragraph 30 of the Report, I think the constitution which we have been promised not the only one we could ever hope to get from Britain today, but a very practical one for Singapore at this stage of development - an area of 235 square miles with a population of one and a quarter million. So until the merger of Singapore with the Federation is a fact, we might be forced by circumstances to leave the question of defence to Britain. We, the Alliance in Singapore, will do our best to make such a merger possible and will leave no stone unturned to remove whatever obstacles there are in the way.

Coming to this paragraph 30, of which we have heard so much lately. I do not see what Britain and the Government of Singapore could expect from it. The imposition of this condition by Britain will only create heroes out of those who are being detained - that is in the eyes of a section of the people only -

Mr Marshall: Martyrs.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: But after close examination, these so-called heroes, or martyrs as what the Member for Cairnhill has just said, may not be heroes after all. They may be rogues in disguise seeking for personal gain. In saying this, Sir, I am not doubting the wisdom of the Government at all in issuing those Detention Orders. In fact, I am one who always advocates for it. What I mean to convey to this House is this: that we are not frightened to fight the election side by side with them, and if they are hypocrites or imposters, we can always expose them, for we believe that right will ultimately triumph over evil.

Another question on which I would like to touch is the question of residential qualification for citizenship. Although this question has been agreed to by all Parties concerned, including Her Majesty's Government, but in view of the recommendations of the Reid Commission published lately, I wonder whether the Government could bring the matter in line with the Federation today - that is, eight years instead of ten. If a man is considered fit enough to be a citizen of the Federation, there is no reason why he should not be fit for Singapore. Numerous editorials in the Chinese Press have been clamouring for such a reduction, and I hope the Government, in consultation with all the Parties concerned and Her Majesty's Government, will do their best to accede to the request. For the reasons which I have just explained, I oppose the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill.

12.03 p.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am distressed that the debate that should have been concerned with the triumph of the All-Party Delegation in bringing back a new Constitution for Singapore, should be in danger of being remembered as the tragedy of the Member for Cairnhill. Let me dwell first, and at greater length, on the triumph, at the risk of some inevitable repetition.

The Hon. the Chief Minister has rightly and properly emphasised that this is not a Government motion which the Member for Cairnhill seeks to amend, but an All-Party motion. That is of the greatest importance. The major Parties - the Labour Front, the Liberal-Socialists, the M.C.A.-U.M.N.O.-Alliance, the P.A.P. (I put them in alphabetical order) - reached agreement on the policy to be adopted in London, submitted it to this Assembly for unanimous approval, including the Member for Changi, went to London and brought back what is virtually a hundred per cent acceptance -

Mr Marshall: No.

Mr John Ede: - of the mandate given to it. For the first time in these few years we as an Assembly have shown that when national matters are at stake, wise leadership can produce and maintain a united front. Sir, one of the characteristics which have made the British parliamentary system workable in Britain is this ability to rise above party when national honour is paramount and national solidarity essential. The success of the All-Party Delegation is evidence that the democratic system can work in a multi-racial Singapore as well as in homogeneous Britain. I believe this to be a matter of the greatest significance for the future.

Let us not forget that two months ago the possibility of success was assailed by three grave doubts: firstly, the deep concern of the Malays as to their position in a future Singapore; secondly, whether Britain could possibly accept a three-three-one Security Council; and, thirdly, whether a Malayan-born as Head of the new State of Singapore would be conceded. First of all, diplomacy and good sense on all sides resolved the not unreasonable perturbation of the Malays before the conclusion of the All-Party Conference, and I do not think enough credit has been given to the Malay leaders for the part they played, nor to the national party unity which helped to influence them. At all events, the first section of the Report after the declaration that Singapore shall be known as the State of Singapore protects Malay and minority interests. Let that not lightly be forgotten.

Secondly, Her Majesty's Government accepted the principle that Singapore Ministers should have "full responsibility for maintaining internal law and order and preventing subversion" in section 24 of this Report which the Member for Cairnhill has sought to ignore or belittle. And furthermore Her Majesty's Government accepted the principle that in cases of doubt the Federation representative should be the deciding voice. On this point I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar and my colleague the Member for Paya Lebar that this decision may well be of historic importance for Malaya and for South-East Asia, and reveals a perspicacity of which we are all as yet not fully aware. For I believe with my hon. Friends that there has been forged with the Federation a link the strands of which are at present largely invisible; and it is on this point alone that I would accept the fact that our new constitution must be delayed, if absolutely essential, for about another year.

Because in another year the new State across the causeway will be eight months old, and I venture to suggest that by then the attitude towards Singapore at present prevailing in some quarters there may be beginning to change. And in two years from now, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has pointed out, general elections will be held in the Federation. So our gratitude must go to the Federation for the part they have played in our Security Council. May I at the same time suggest this to the Hon. the Chief Minister - that he should not press the question of a merger with undue haste? Through his diplomacy he has laid the foundation-stone in having Federation representation on the Security Council. Let that stone have time to settle.

The third hurdle was establishing that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be a Malayan-born representative of the Queen to be recommended by the Singapore Government to Her Majesty's Government. The Member for Cairnhill made foolish play with the idea that Her Majesty's Government will impose Englishmen born in this country on a self-governing Singapore. I do not believe for one moment that any Englishman, however Malayan he might be, who understands the trends of the times in Asia, would accept this notion as feasible or appropriate. And so let us give credit where it is due. Her Majesty's Government has agreed to a Malayan being appointed Yang di-Pertuan Negara in a not fully independent State as a completely new departure. That is another reason why this All-Party motion should be regarded as a triumph for the unity of the All-Party Delegation and the unanimity of this House.

Let me now turn to what I have dubbed "the tragedy of the Member for Cairnhill", and on this matter, Sir, I promise to be as brief and as relevant as possible, because, Sir, it is out of this tragedy that I hope will arise the victory of democratic principles in Singapore's short parliamentary history which he, for one, has been in danger of destroying. Nothing has happened in the last week which is more shocking than the Member for Cairnhill's repudiation of the colleagues whom he once led and on whose loyalty he once relied, a loyalty which we are told was strained to breaking point. The P.A.P. is concerned with the accusation levelled against them, that they double-crossed the people of Singapore; they are well able to deal with that themselves. But what I am concerned with is the setting up and preservation of reasonable standards of conduct in Singapore's parliamentary and public life. Without such standards, no constitution, however liberal, can survive. And so I find exceedingly distasteful the holier-than-thou attitude in which the Member for Cairnhill is seeking to introduce in this House an anti-corruption motion at this particular time. I will say no more than that.

Sir, this amendment calling for the immediate implementation of a constitution which the proposer calls a fraud, and the seconder does not, is an insult to the intelligence of the hon. Members of this House. I repudiate it and, in doing so, I shall vote for the All-Party motion forged out of national unity and national determination for the future prosperity of this country. I shall vote for the triumph and not for the tragedy.

12.11 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, one Honourable Minister said that Friday was a very sad day, a sad day indeed for the Government especially when they were met with guns booming over his head from his own side. It reminds me of those days in Singapore when we tried to put up our defences in front and guard our sea coast properly, and then the attack came from behind, from Johore, which was not guarded at all. It was a very sorrowful state of affairs.

On Friday, however, we should recollect what was more interesting. We had the Member for Cairnhill talking for four hours. The Chinese Press called it "great fun". I read a translation. The Chinese Press said there was crying, wailing and laughing for four hours. "We had great fun." But I was not convinced, Sir, that those four hours did any good to Singapore. Those four hours were more like an act staged for the benefit of the people of Singapore, to appeal to their hearts, to stir up their emotions, rather than make them think, make them use their heads to decide what was good or what was bad. I listened very patiently I did not interrupt, as did at least one Member interrupt whenever other Members spoke. I listened very carefully and I summed it up when I was asked my opinion as to what I thought about it. I said, "Yes, it was very interesting. It was just like a very large sponge cake," and I said that if we reduced it to size to see how much substance we could get out of it, it would be like the size of the cube of sugar which I showed in the C.P.A. room. All that substance during those four hours! It was very disappointing, Sir, It was indeed a good way of wasting time. It was indeed a good way of wasting other people's useful time. The way how the debate was not allowed to continue after the motion of interruption was again an obstructive move, a move-

Mr Speaker: I do not think any hon. Member is entitled to comment on the conduct of another hon. Member if he acts strictly within his own Standing Orders.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Thank you for your guidance, Sir. We will go on to other relevant things. It may not be the conduct in this Assembly, but it may be the conduct in connection with the office.

Sir, this year the Merdeka Mission went to London with a very much reduced membership, not 13, not that unlucky number, but five. It did not go in little batches - some going in the morning, others in the afternoon; some by one plane, others by another - but they went all together, as one single delegation. One hon. Member wanted to join the delegation. Unfortunately, however, the All-Party Conference thought otherwise, and I suppose that has some bearing on this debate here, making it more prolonged than ever. I have always thought that man in this world should not look at himself and try to shower honours on himself, but whenever another man can do something good and worth while for other people, we should give him the credit. This personality cult should not be allowed to disturb what is good for the whole of Singapore. It should be removed so that the people here are more national conscious than self-conscious. The attitude of "I was not there; therefore it cannot be good" must never happen here. Leaders of Singapore should always set good examples to those whom they want to follow them.

I was one of the members of last year's delegation. I was one of the unlucky 13. Of course, this year I went as one of the five members. I suppose those who were on last year's delegation as well as this year's delegation can compare the difference - the difference in leadership, the reasonableness of the one who led us this year. We could also note the difference in the calibre, the steadfastness on the one hand, knowing where we were going and actually getting there, and on the other hand, the change of opinion from day to day, from hour to hour. In fact, last year I never knew what surprises would be sprung on me. There were so many things to do and we were kept very busy. We had the Merdeka Conference: we had the all-delegates' conference; we had the Party leaders' conference; we had the Party delegation conference, and I suppose added to that a host of other conferences. We never knew at that time when we were supposed to sleep. Sometimes we might be called up at ten o'clock, sometimes early in the morning, sometimes late at night. Of course, the most memorable one was at about two or three a.m. and I had to say no to that.

The quality of leadership, Sir, is not one which should be able to get the person concerned a great deal of publicity in the newspapers, but one which should give the maximum to the people whom he has proclaimed and sworn to serve. Of course this year we also have heard strange things, but last year we went with a "very brave Chief Minister, a very brave leader", a leader who said, "I will resign if I cannot get what I want." I just cannot recollect how many times that was said. I kept counting that every time, so that during the last days when a reporter asked me, "What are you going to do if such a resignation should take place?", I scratched my head and replied that I had heard it so many times, let me see that happen first.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have allowed a great deal of irrelevancies but I think that this particular discussion of what happened in London last year is becoming much too detailed to be relevant to the motion before us.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just comparing what we have got this year with what we got last year. My theme was whether we have got more or whether we have got less. We were accused of getting less this year, so it is up to us to tell the Member for Cairnhill that we did not get less. We got a Christmas cake plus something else - the arsenic sauce, of course, we left aside - until we have come to this Assembly to ask whether we should accept that; so that the whole theme then has been a matter of comparison. The leadership last year, Sir, was ferocious, brave-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.24 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.