CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957

Debate resumed.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, last week, reference was made to a number of animals, such as the lizard of Cairnhill, made repeatedly too a very long time ago, and the chameleon of Cairnhill. There was also the mouse with Tolley's brandy. I find, Sir, that the Mission that tried to get - as the Member for Cairnhill said - more than what the Mission got this year tried a trick on the lion. The mouse with two pegs of brandy went up to the lion and said, "I will bash you to death." When the lion turned round and roared, the mouse did not ask, "Where is the lion?" He scurried into his hole. It reminds me rather, Sir, of a more vivid illustration. Some people quoted Chinese stories; others preferred Shakespeare, and so on, but I have a simple story from English story books which is of a Malayan character. A party that is going out lion hunting usually has a pack of thoroughbreds to assist them in their work, but they always take along a few mongrels - one or two - in order that these brave little things might go forward barking at the top of their voices and when they detect the prey, they make the most of it. Now, that was their usefulness. However, when the lion turns around and roars, then the mongrel - we call it "pariah" here - will scuttle with his tail behind his hind legs. I was just reminded of that story.

Now, we come to the part of the motion that was left out about the subversion clause. You have heard the Member for Cairnhill saying that he is for putting all subversives behind bars. "Everyone here sheds crocodile tears", but he is for their not coming out to contest their elections! I remember, Sir, that he, as the leader of the Labour Front, in his proclamations during the elections, said that that Party wanted to abolish the Emergency Regulations. The Emergency Regulations were removed but in their stead, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance came in. He should know that that was a better substitute because, in essence, it seemed to have more effect than the Emergency Regulations. Here is a conflict of principle. The Party under him went against the mandate he gave to the people and he was party to it. Now, he feels that they must be allowed to contest elections and that this condition would be much better done by the Singapore Government itself and not imposed from without. "Singapore must do that!" So we will see how Singapore did that. Last May, there was a bloody riot. People were killed and Singapore was turned into great disorder. [Interruption] In May 1955, Sir. I correct myself. That was during the Hock Lee riots. The then Chief Minister took stern action. He brought many people whom he suspected were not doing Singapore any good behind the bars. Yes, Singapore must do it and the then Chief Minister did it; but out came the unions, out came all the other organisations, out came everybody in Singapore and they stamped their feet. These elements were let out, and let out unconditionally. Where, Sir, is the principle that Singapore must do it and must do it under the then Chief Minister? I find that there is too much contradiction in all these talks. At one time, it is good and at another time, it is not good! At one time, something must be done one way and at another time, it cannot be done the same way! It is very, very difficult to understand, Sir. The illustration I have just given is a very good one.

Mr Marshall: Worthy of you.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Now, Sir, let us come again to the reception the people of Singapore had for the Mission. The credit, of course - if there is so much credit to give - goes to the Chief Minister. As part of the Mission, the leader gets the most credit. I do not envy him. I think he deserves all the credit he gets. The people of Singapore did not come with banners and with brass bands. There were no prancing lions along the route of the Merdeka Mission. However, there were no clashes on the padang, not like the clashes at Kallang Airport. No words of dissension were said before, during and after the Mission as compared with the Mission last year. "The people were silent." I do not think that that was quite right, Sir. The people were very happy. I could see smiles everywhere, and I would like the Member for Cairnhill to know, Sir, that in the East here, people are not just that expressive.

Mr Marshall: Is the Federation not in the East?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: They do not go in the street embracing and kissing one another to show their love for one another. This is a thing of the West. If they happen to be disappointed, as they were during the Japanese occupation of Malaya, they did not weep or wail or gnash their teeth or stamp their feet to show their disapproval. It was just silent hatred. You have to live here very long before you can know the real feelings of the people by observation. You have to look into their eyes. You have to look into their facial features before you can tell what they feel. As a person who knows this country and the people well enough and understands their traditions and cultures, I say that the people rejoiced at the time when the delegation returned. For a man, Sir, who was far away from Singapore and was not a witness at the scene to say, "Oh, that reception was poor, the people were not happy. They were stonily silent," let us find out how much truth there is in that statement. How much can we believe it when it is not first-hand news, not even second-hand news but probably third-hand news?

Sir, in the padang, as the Minister for Education said, there were a few boos. Yes, a few organised boos for the Minister for Education but a large proportion of the people were just quietly happy. They approved of what the delegation did. Their rejoicings could only be known by any stranger outside this country joining them in their small talk, although we know it by observation. They were absolutely happy. The majority of the people of Singapore are not of the hooligan type who wave banners, shout and misbehave themselves on the street. They are just quiet, gentle, peace-loving people. In this, the Member for Cairnhill has erred. He has interpreted it wrongly and I know, no matter what he says the people of Singapore know their minds. They know how to think with their heads and they are not carried away by emotion. In this House, Sir, we too must be credited with some ability to think. Orations that are good enough for juries and for the masses who are roused by emotion should not be used here. We must be credited with brains to be able to be here to discuss things sanely and quietly.

The Member for Cairnhill is very unhappy about the delay in the coming elections. "It must be done very fast. It should be done in two months' time. We should make use of the identity cards and then ask these people to vote. You can do it in two months. You can do it in three months." I do not know whether he said two or three months. But it is a very short time. I suggest that we could have done it in a much shorter time and we could have had the elections today or we could have been in the midst of an election today if the advice tendered to our then leader were accepted. What was offered last year was definitely less than this year. We will say ten or fifteen percent less but still there was that offer. We advised a little quiet and a little patience in order that negotiations could be carried on again sanely. The talks would not have broken down and if the talks had not broken down, then today we would have been having an elected Assembly consisting of 50 Members. It was for 50 Members last year, Sir, and we would not now be urging the Government to shorten the period for the coming elections. Of course, it is said that we should give the people who are eligible their citizenship rights. "We should give them voting rights. We can prepare legislation for it. We have that ready. We should introduce that rightaway, and in three Readings, we will get it over." If my memory is correct, when I put the question to the Member for Cairnhill, who was then the Chief Minister, he should have come forward and introduced that Bill. As leader of the Labour Front and as the Chief Minister of the then Labour Front Coalition Government, he should have introduced that Bill in this Assembly. We would have been saved all the trouble of wanting to introduce it now. Mr Lennox-Boyd came to Singapore in 1955 and after he left, he made a statement in the Press that the formula for citizenship was agreed to and it was within the power of the Government to carry that out. We waited, waited and waited and we found that nothing was done. No move was made until even June or July last year. Now, there is a hurried move - for we are persuaded to believe that there is a genuine desire to give the right of voting to these people rightaway. I cannot see how the two can tally. Action and words at one stage and at another all go against one another. There is no argument in that at all, Sir. I wish that people are more genuine when they put forward suggestions. I wish that those who profess to want to help the people and give them a better deal should come out sincerely and do things instead of saying things. Because of all this, Sir, I feel that the Member for Cairnhill is arguing against himself at every turn, on every point. I cannot see anything right in the amendment. I oppose that amendment.

2.40 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, it has not been my practice to jump up every now and then to speak unless it is incumbent upon me to do so. I have always endeavoured to emulate the wise old owl who sat on the old oak tree, but listening to the oration of the Member for Cairnhill, the inconsistent balderdash-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am getting a little tired of unparliamentary language and the hon. Member must know that "balderdash" is unparliamentary. Please withdraw it.

Mr Braga: As it pleases you, Mr Speaker, but listening to the "inconsistencies in support of the amendment".

The Member for Cairnhill once asked me to withdraw a remark I made in this House about his proneness in changing his conscience. I did not withdraw it. I do not withdraw it. In fact, I repeat it. I do not, as a rule, indulge in personal attacks. Personal attacks, unless justified, are weapons which should be below the dignity of a Member of this House to use, but one cannot remain silent when our Chief Minister who, when the Member for Cairnhill was Chief Minister, chose to call him his loyal friend and praised him to high heaven, but now because our Chief Minister has done more in the few months than the Member for Cairnhill did in 18 months; who did not create crises every day nor called upon his Ministers daily on self-created impending crises; who has led the Members of the Government calmly and steadily, instilling that feeling of confidence in the people of Singapore which was missing immediately before: who is an adept in strategy and does not have to kneel at the feet of Nehru; who knew what he wanted when he went to London this time with the All-Party Delegation and got what the All-Party Delegation wanted in accordance with the mandate received from this House - perhaps in bitterness or in aspiring to regain the power he wielded in this House in those days, the Member for Cairnhill chooses to attack unfairly and unjustly - one cannot then remain quiet. We are accustomed in this House to his histrionics but the Member for Cairnhill has certainly excelled himself this time in his theatrical abilities, although at times pathetically. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has dealt with the fallacies of the arguments launched by the Member for Cairnhill in detail and dealt with the statements so loosely made by the Member for Cairnhill effectively.

On the question of elections, Sir, any suggestion that the Government is deliberately holding up is not true. The Government was quite ready to hold the elections in August in accordance with the assurances given. The Government proceeded to divide Singapore into 51 divisions. The electoral roll was prepared. It was the All-Party Delegation who, on careful consideration, decided otherwise and the matter was brought to and debated in this House and received unanimous approval. The reason for the delay was obvious. Do we want to give the 200,000 persons to enjoy the citizenship rights that have now been won for them and with those rights the opportunity to elect a new Government. The decision on that point was unanimous.

On the question of the date for these elections, the time estimated by the Member for Tanjong Pagar appears quite reasonable but Government will bring about elections at the earliest opportunity.

As a Member of the All-Party Delegation who went to London last May and knowing exactly what happened, I can thoroughly endorse what the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said. Yes, I went to the tea party at Mr Lennox-Boyd's house after the failure of the talks and so did our Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock). We went as loyal colleagues of the then Chief Minister and as the only Labour Front Ministers there to give him cheer although we knew the undesirability of reopening the talks and what the ultimate result would be. He knows perfectly well that in accepting collective responsibility how loyal every one on these Front Benches was in lending him support. Is it not therefore a shame for him that in criticising the Clerks Employment Bill which places the ceiling of $500 as a clerk's salary, when his attention was drawn to the fact that he as Chief Minister approved the Labour Code which placed the ceiling at $400 he so glibly and shamefully put the blame on the shoulders of the Minister for Labour-

Mr Speaker: Order. There again, I think the hon. Member has erred by using the words "glibly" and "shamefully". Please withdraw those two words.

Mr Braga: As it pleases you. Mr Speaker, but by laying the blame on the shoulders of the Minister for Labour and Welfare, is it therefore not understandable that when he tendered his resignation from the Labour Front, it was accepted unanimously by the Central Committee?

It is my opinion that this amended motion was brought without any sane, reasonable and careful consideration. The arguments in support of it have been proved by more than one Member of this House to be fallacious. I naturally oppose it. Even the seconder who feebly seconded the motion openly disagreed with most of what the Member for Cairnhill had said. He probably does not appreciate the significance of the original motion but says that he seconds, the amendment for reasons of his own, which are by no means clear to me.

I first intended, Mr Speaker, Sir, to sit quietly and vote against the amended motion without any speechifying but now I find it necessary to do so and in defence of the attacks so maliciously made.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member also withdraw the word "maliciously"?

Mr Braga: As it pleases you, Mr Speaker, "so wrongly made".

2.59 p.m.

The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been sitting here for the last five days and since last Friday we have been debating on the motion of the Hon. the Chief Minister and on the amendment to the motion of the Chief Minister by the Member for Cairnhill.

Sir, you may remember at the last March sitting that the All-Party Delegation before going to London received a mandate from this House to proceed to London for a discussion of a new constitution for Singapore under the leadership of the Chief Minister. The All-Party Delegation have done their best with sincerity and honesty, fighting for what they had been asked to do and they have brought back to us what we wanted and they have tabled the Report here today for our approval to the points they have agreed upon with the British Government.

During the debate, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has objected to the motion put up by the Chief Minister and moved an amendment to his motion in this House. Honestly, I believe, Sir, that the All-Party Delegation have done what they have been told to do and returned to Singapore with what we have asked for. To my surprise, the British Government had imposed, in the second part of the motion, a condition to prevent subversive persons from taking part in the coming Singapore elections under the new constitution. Sir, we have proved that we are capable of fighting the subversives ourselves. As you will remember, Sir, during the riots in 1956, we proved to the world that we could fight the subversives. I stand firmly behind the All-Party Delegation for not accepting the condition imposed by the British Government.

Now, I come to the second part of the motion, that is, the amended motion by the Member for Cairnhill. He wanted this Government to have a general election as early as possible. I have heard the views of several Members in this House that it is impracticable to have a general election within two or three months. I do support their views, Sir. I do not wish to further my speech any more because I know that other Members wish to speak too. Therefore, before I conclude my speech, Sir, I strongly oppose the amendment.

3.04 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, this has been a sad and exhausting session of the Assembly. It is sad for me personally, because it has been the break with a fairly lengthy association in politics with a man for whose abilities I have had the greatest admiration but whose abilities are, I am afraid, being wasted and stultified through acting on a too hasty assessment of political realities; and I have been very unhappy during this debate to hear the Member for Cairnhill exposing himself in every aspect to attack, showing weaknesses in his argument again and again and, at the same time, so putting his arguments and so allowing his oratory to flow, that it was impossible for Members of this House - whatever their personal feelings - to refrain from attacking him in reply. It is not enough that as Members of the House we should know that he is wrong. We may know it, but we have got to give the answers so that everybody may know it; and in the process the hon. Member has had to be stabbed again and again by the hard points of facts. We have heard a great many facts already and I think I ought to give one or two more.

We had a lengthy reference to the stony silence of the people of Singapore on the return of the delegates from London which has been contrasted with the glorious enthusiasm of the merdeka rally at the Kallang Airport a year ago. When that merdeka rally was first discussed, I warned those with whom I was discussing it that it could be a very dangerous occasion, and that to bring 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 people into a large open space of that sort meant that you had a crowd which would be difficult to control. If you added to it impassioned speeches, glamorous flags, all the arts of rousing public feeling, stirring up the crowd with music and songs and dances, cheers and catchwords and cries of merdeka, you would get people excited and you would get - not a rational and serious approach to the real problems before you - but rather an emotional approach which would be liable to explode into emotional action. Well, we got away with that rally very much better than I feared we might have done. In fact, if the platform had not fallen down and if it had not rained and if we had provided alternative loudspeaker facilities from the Airport building, so that the speeches could have been heard, the rally would probably have gone off all right, and there would have been no trouble. But there was a series of mishaps and difficulties and we did have a little trouble. Now, I think, Mr Speaker, that for the record, I ought to make this point. In connection with the merdeka rally, the Member for Cairnhill made a most savage attack on the Press. I have my own disagreements with the Press. Even this morning, one English language newspaper carried banner headlines across the page of an announcement whereas the other English language newspaper carried a front-page story contradicting it. The Press sometimes gets its political wires a bit crossed. In trying to make head or tail of the Singapore political scene - which itself does not always make either head or tail - it sometimes gets into a bit of a muddle, but, on the whole, I do not think that the Press does it on purpose. They do their best in a difficult situation. I certainly do not think that the Press - or Singapore - is benefited by accusing the Press of slimy hatred, or of dishonesty, or of deliberate perversion and distortion of the facts, because that sort of attack lays us open to the danger that freedom of the Press might be lost. We need a Press which is free and which can criticise all of us when we do wrong, and sometimes criticise us when we do right. If the Press is free, it must be free to be unfair as well as to be fair. It must be free to do wrong as well as to do right. That is the meaning of freedom. You can have your choice between whether you do right or you do wrong and it is up to you to choose. Of course, there has to be sonic limitation on freedom. No man is free to commit murder - and the Press is not free to commit libel. But within the limits of what can be tolerated, everybody should have as much freedom as he can and we should tolerate the Press and should encourage it to write freely about the activities of our politicians.

Now, the Member for Cairnhill was the prime mover in holding a rally at Kallang Airport, but after the collapse of the platform and the rather unsuccessful speeches that were made from the old Airport building, he left the scene and retired to his seaside house. I did not leave the scene - because I had foreseen trouble. And I felt that it was just as well to be on the spot, because at that time the old Airport building fell within my portfolio as the Minister for Communications and Works, and I also felt myself that I was responsible for the building. So I stayed around and when the trouble started I was well placed to see what was happening. I did see what was happening, and I do not think that in any significant degree the Press did misrepresent the facts, as far as one can know what the facts are, when dusk is falling and the light is not very good, and when there is a confused crowd of people, and it is difficult to tell precisely what they are doing. But I should like to give my personal testimony to the reasonable objectivity and reliability of the Press reports at that time. I think they did their best except, I think, for one reporter serving a newspaper that does not come out in Singapore who, I believe, made a rather wild report. But our local papers, I think, did a very honest and reasonable job. In point of fact, I wrote to the then Chief Minister at that time to say that I thought they had done a reasonable job and that they had been reasonably accurate. I wanted to get that mentioned, Mr Speaker, and I would like to say that, having that memory of the merdeka rally in my mind, I felt that the return of our successful delegation was not an occasion for too much flag flapping and too much stimulus to crowd emotions. I remember very well on the night of the merdeka rally, when I was trying to contact the then Chief Minister, I went to his flat overlooking the Cathedral and the Padang. And from his flat as I was telephoning, I looked out of the window and there was a large procession returning from the Kallang Airport marching along the road towards Chinatown. That procession in itself could have led to further trouble. Luckily, it did not. It was persuaded to disperse but it could have been a further danger to us all. Now, if we had anything of that sort on the occasion of the return of the successful Merdeka Delegation, it would have been, Mr Speaker, a disaster for Singapore. We all know how vulnerable our prosperity is. We cannot live on what we produce. We can only live on the services we render to our trading partners, and if our trading partners are frightened of us, then they will not trade through us. Consequently, when it fell to me to serve as Chairman of the All-Party Committee which was planning the reception of the Merdeka Delegation, I was anxious that it should be on sober and realistic lines and that the people of Singapore should have an opportunity of seeing their returning delegates and welcoming them and hearing what they had to say. After all, they were only returning with an agreement. The actual step forward has not been taken. It is only agreed that we shall be able to take the step forward in due course when the Constitution has been brought into operation. It did not seem to me to be an occasion for too many shouts and excitement because, after all, shouts and excitement will come in more appropriately on whatever day is finally fixed as Merdeka Day (or perhaps we should say "tiga suku merdeka day"?). I think those who were present during the reception to the Merdeka Delegation can well be satisfied that it was a sober and sincere one, in which the people joined with their leaders in recognizing the responsibilities falling on them in greater measure as they went forward towards greater freedom.

I have never subscribed to the view that sincerity is proven by loud shouts and waving of hands in the air. To me, sincerity is a matter of doing hard work. If a man will work hard, then he is sincere in the cause for which he is working. The number of fine words he uses or speeches he makes are not in themselves proof of sincerity. Certainly I do not think the people of Singapore need to demonstrate the sincerity of their desire for the responsibilities of freedom by loud shouts and crowd scenes. They can show their sincerity more by solid national effort to make sure that Singapore is a better, happier, cleaner and finer place, by the work of the whole nation, not by the work of only a few leaders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, they say that the elephant never forgets. If that is true, then the Member for Cairnhill clearly is not an elephant because sometimes he does forget. Many points have already been made about how he forgot what was fixed in legislation when he himself was the Chief Minister, about what he was willing to accept in London a year ago but which he now regards as pock-marked. We have even heard that, whereas last year he regarded anyone contesting elections under the Rendel Constitution as one of the most advanced lepers to be found, he takes a different view this year. Perhaps it is not necessary to stress too heavily or too lengthily on his lapses of memory, but there is one point which has not been dealt with and on which I ought to touch.

I should like, Mr Speaker, to give one reason (I do not think it has yet been dealt with in this debate) why this Merdeka agreement should be accepted and should be acceptable: it preserves the existing link with Great Britain. I am not thinking primarily of the political link - offices in Whitehall and that sort of thing. I am thinking, Mr Speaker, of the commercial and economic link. Singapore, as everyone knows, is a small place with a small population. There is not much point in saying that Singapore has a larger revenue than Panama or a larger population than Newfoundland, and that the latter is a Dominion. After all, if you have the choice of living in Panama or Singapore, I am sure you will prefer to live here. The Member for Cairnhill listed many small countries as being free, independent nations whilst Singapore was crawling in the "colonial muck". Well, I think that, economically, Singapore is far better off in the "colonial muck" than other small countries are with their freedom and independence; and in Singapore, there is probably also a good deal more freedom for the individual. I do not know places well, but I looked up a few references during the last few days (I will not bother to quote them now or else my speech will never come to an end!) but it is sufficient to say simply that Singapore has the highest per capita income and the highest standard of living of the countries in South-East Asia. This is a very considerable achievement, which has been made under colonial rule; an achievement made not because of colonial rule, but because of the fact of Singapore's geographical position and because of the economic links which have been built up in 140 years of trading.

It is essential, Mr Speaker, that we should maintain our trading connections. If we can create new ones, that is all for the better. If we can create so many new and secure trading connections that we do not need the old ones, then we can abandon the old ones. But we cannot abandon any of our existing trade without immediately causing suffering to our people in Singapore. We need a stable currency because people buy and sell through Singapore, and make use of our banking and insurance services, and all the other skills accumulated here which are our greatest assets. People need to have confidence in the currency which they use, and it is of the greatest advantage to us that we should have a Singapore or Straits dollar which is stable and recognised as a reliable currency in which you can trade, and which will not suddenly let you down. For that reason alone, we must retain our links with the sterling area, at least until we have something else ready. If we can ever find something else, by all means let us consider it; but as long as we have not got an alternative, we must retain the situation which has given us a reliable currency.

In the same way, the general pattern of our trade links us up with the rest of the free world, in particular the sterling area. I remember, Mr Speaker, that in an earlier debate in this Assembly, I dealt with similar questions about Singapore, and I would like to remind Members of my remarks and of the alternatives before us. Singapore cannot stand alone. It must be associated with one of the big power groups in the world. Whether militarily or economically, we have to be linked with someone. What are the three power groups? There is the United States of America and those associated with it; there is the Commonwealth of Nations; and there is the Communist bloc from Eastern Europe to the shores of China. We have to choose between these three; there is no other major grouping to which we can belong or with which we can associate. I do not think that there will be any marked advantage in transferring our association with the United Kingdom to the United States - if one is the frying pan, then the other might be the fire. If we have to choose between these two groups, there will be no particular point in leaving Whitehall for Washington (In fact, this is not practical politics and nobody is considering it). The only alternative to Whitehall and Washington is Moscow and Peking, and here, Mr Speaker, I should like to develop a short geographical argument because, in thinking about the present Merdeka agreement, we have to look beyond, to our future constitutional progress and our future relationship with those around us.

If you will conjure up in your mind's eye, Mr Speaker, a large map of the world with the North Pole at the top, you will find that, going southwards, you immediately get out of the ice and snow (in fact before you get out of the ice and snow), you run into Russia and China. Long before Communism dominated that large part of the world, academic teachers called geo-politicians developed the theme that there was a heart-land in the world and that whoever ruled that heart-land would ultimately rule the world. This heart-land is the vast area from Eastern Europe across to the China coast, the area now held and controlled by Communism. In many ways, Communism is a very appropriate form of government for these large territories where previously there had been a complete breakdown in government and a high degree of inefficiency; and it may well be worth the while of the people living there to sacrifice their freedom in order to have stable governments which will carry out economic development.

Now around this enormous heart-land with its tremendous wealth in population and natural resources, there lies a fringe running from Japan down to the Philippines, Borneo, Vietnam, Siam, Burma, India, Pakistan, through the Middle East countries of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, through Greece round to Italy, till you come to Britain and finally to Scandinavia. These countries form a narrow fringe around this enormous solid bloc under Communist control. Anybody who ponders on the strategy of World War III can see that - well, I will leave the question of military strategy alone, Mr Speaker, I do not think it is highly relevant to this argument - but what is relevant to the argument is the strategy of trade until World War III takes place, which please God it never will. If Singapore were to fall within the Communist heart-land, if its boundaries reached forward to envelop Siam, Malaya and Singapore, we will lose our present advantageous trading position and enter a period of poverty and suffering. This is because Singapore now lies centrally to the fringe-lands of the free, non-Communist world: it is able to trade because it lies centrally to the natural trading routes. If you pick up a map, you will see, converging on Singapore, the sea and air routes of world trade and world movement. Because of this, we live; without it, we die. If we fall into the Communist sphere, we shall no longer be central to the world and there will be no reason why trade should pass through Singapore. Hongkong is a different case altogether. It is outside Communist China but at any time it can be taken into Communist China, although if both parties wished, it could always remain a valuable trading position because it lies so close to the vast areas of China. But if Singapore falls within the Communist empire, there will be no reason why a merchant should trade from here except in so far as he trades with the free world, and even then he will find it more convenient to trade from elsewhere. I cannot imagine that goods will be sent from Leningrad to Canton by sea via Singapore. If we fall within the Communist empire, we should, by that single fall, lose our trade almost wholly and totally, quite apart from the fact that there will then inevitably be embargoes, blockades and other cold war devices inflicted on us.

Therefore, until there are changes in the international world of politics, it seems to me inevitable that Singapore should retain its links with its old trading partners and, in particular, with the sterling area and the Commonwealth of Nations. The time may come when other choices will be available, and we should all be looking forward to them, continually examining new possibilities, because it is by willingness to examine possibilities that we can hope to expand our trade. But until we have found a definite alternative, it will be most unwise to abandon our present connections. What we can do is to maintain them, to live freely and prosperously within them. To be a trading partner is a happy and useful thing, and there need be no stigma of colonialism or imperialism, because if we are an efficient trading centre we serve our friends and our friends serve us.

Another aspect of our trading functions, Mr Speaker, is that we are a shop, or a public market, if you prefer it. To us come customers from all over the world. They come because our market is well placed. We are a convenient shop on a corner site with main roads all around us, and so the customers come. But it is not absolutely essential for them to come here; and if our shop is continually closed to business and you never know when it is going to be opened or not, people will come less often. If our shops are closed by a strike or riot, or through emotional outbursts, then the ships which normally come to Singapore will go elsewhere, and once they start on different routes, they will perhaps tend to stay there. Once they build up a connection with another port, with new agencies, new crews and so on, they will, through the sheer inertia of daily life, be reluctant to come back to Singapore. If we look forward to expanding our shop, getting more customers, we must be certain that we have peace and good order at home. Customers do not like the shopkeepers suddenly beginning to fight one another, nor do they like to get beaten up incidentally. As an international sea and air port, we cannot afford to let visitors remind themselves that one of their countrymen was killed here last year and feel quite unhappy about coming here. Well, fortunately on the whole, our name has remained good in spite of certain incidents, but there is a limit, and a very dangerous one, to the tolerance of the people we need as our customers. As long as they can make profit, people who trade will seek to make them, but they are not going to risk their capital and profits in a place where they do not feel any confidence in the stability of the government or the stability of the currency.

Well, we all know the saying about a bull in a china shop. I have said that the Member for Cairnhill is clearly not an elephant because his memory is not always perfect, but we may perhaps compare him with a bull in the Singapore china shop, because he has ideas which are not likely to preserve all the contents of that shop in good order. The Member wants immediate election very, very quickly, without proper preparation and based on a curious "half-baked" register which is not properly drawn up. His original idea, I think, was to have elections in August, to be followed by further ones two years later based on a new register. Sir, we cannot afford to have continual elections in a place like Singapore. Once in four years is clearly as much as you want - five years perhaps - because every time an election is pending, customers coming to Singapore look around and say, "Well, I think I will wait until the election is over and see who has come into power before I put down my hundred thousand or million dollars" - in building a factory or a new office building, or in the other money transactions which are necessary for us to do our trade. If we live under the permanent shadow of new elections, people will say, "Well, I think I will put my money in Canada, where I know I can get a very good return; it has a booming economy and is the place where I feel I can be sure things are going to go on quietly and nicely." If we want to compete for the trade of the world, we have got to satisfy our trading customers.

Apart from the fact that too frequent elections will inhibit investment, there is the fact that every election is naturally a time when people make fiery speeches and get excited, and there is also the danger to which I referred at considerable length just now, that in the end we shall perhaps get people turning from throwing hard words at each other to throwing hard stones. In our elections in 1955, for example, there were occasions when crowds turned out to be mixed ones of supporters of different Parties, and on at least one occasion, a leading member of the Labour Front received an urgent telephone call and had to hurry out to a rural area where he had to interpose bodily between two small groups of people already at the stage of insults and who probably would shortly have come to blows. That threatened violence was avoided, but the history of elections in Britain shows that there was an enormous amount of violence at election time and quite frequently large numbers of people were killed. Well, Britain could stand that 150 years ago, but Singapore cannot stand it today. That is another reason why we want an election which is properly prepared for by serious Parties with serious programmes really concerned with the welfare of Singapore: we do not want an election to be fought on an emotional issue.

But I do want to make this point - which perhaps I am labouring a little bit too much. Mr Speaker - that if we want trade to come here, we have to show ourselves to be a sober trading community. I remember being very struck by a situation at the Naval Base sometime ago. The Union there had proposed a strike because there was some question of redundancy. I made a few enquiries very informally and gathered that one reason for the redundancy would lie in the fact that not so many ships were coming in for dockyard facilities. And of course the more strikes there are at a dockyard, the fewer will be the number of ships to be docked there. Obviously, nobody will plan to send his ship into a dockyard and find he cannot get it out again six weeks after the due date because all the workers have been on strike, or plan to send it in on a certain date and then find he cannot send it in on that date because the dockyard is closed. People will send their ships elsewhere, and the more you go on strike, the more you will decrease the amount of work to be done and increase redundancy. The same applies to almost everything else. Strikes are sometimes necessary, and it is the duty of good trade union leaders to decide when they are so and must be staged, and when they are unnecessary and can be avoided. But as in war, a strike always leaves both sides worse off. Individual strikers may sometimes win personal gains, but the country as a whole will have suffered a loss of wealth. The wealth may or may not have been redistributed to some extent to the benefit of workers, but the total amount of wealth to be distributed is less.

When I argue for a sober approach to our political problems, for absence of emotional excitement which can sometimes lead to violence, I am not arguing for trade in the sense of profit for the orang kaya, the millionaires, but in the sense of providing the daily rice, the daily livelihood, of workers. Singapore must trade. If we do not trade, we starve, and the first to starve will be the poorest.

Now, Mr Speaker, I ought to turn to one point which has not been fully cleared up in the previous speeches. I refer to paragraph 39 of the Report on the Constitutional Conference this year. Perhaps I had better read it, as Members may not have copies in their hands:

"Requests by Her Majesty's Government for action to be taken by the Singapore Government which in the view of Her Majesty's Government was necessary for the discharge of their responsibilities for external affairs or defence would consequently fall to be discussed in the Inter-Governmental Committee."-

that is the consultative committee-

"We do not expect any practical difficulty in determining what are matters of external affairs or defence. We agreed, however, that it should be open to the Government of Singapore to request that any matter should be referred to the Internal Security Council to decide to what extent, if at all, it lay within the functions of the Council. Except to the extent to which the Council decided that a matter was one of internal security, it would be the duty of the Government of Singapore to give effect to Her Majesty's Government's requirements." Now, paragraph 40 is connected with this. It says:

"The Conference further agreed that if the Singapore Government were to fail to carry out their duty to meet such requirements, the procedure mentioned in paragraph 27 (k) (which relates to the implementation of requirements of the Internal Security Council) should be applicable in this case also. When the requirement related to a Bill before the Singapore Legislature, which in the view of Her Majesty's Government would prejudice the discharge by Her Majesty's Government of their responsibilities, the Chairman of the Security Council would also have the power to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to reserve the Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should then be obliged to do so."

Now, Mr Speaker, I would refer to the Report in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1956. On page 69, in Annexure L, "Constitutional Proposals by the United Kingdom Government", are mentioned proposals offered by the Secretary of State and to which the Member for Cairnhill referred in his speech. Proposal No. (22) on the Constitution reads:

"The High Commissioner normally to exercise his powers in respect of assent to Bills in accordance with the advice of Ministers, -"

normally he would act on the advice of the Minister -

"but to be required to reserve for Her Majesty's pleasure any bill which in the opinion of the Defence and Security Council prejudices the exercise of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities in the field of external defence and external affairs."

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that your fine legal mind penetrates fully through the rather cumbersome wording of these paragraphs and I do not want to take up an undue amount of time in dealing with them. The point I am seeking to put across is this: that in the offer of 1956, the question of these Bills being reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure was to be decided by the Defence and Security Council, on which the colonial power had the effective strength; what has been secured this time is not less than what was offered last year, in fact, it is very much more, because it is open to the Government of Singapore to request that any matter should be referred to the Internal Security Council. If the Singapore Government says. "We want this, please, to go to the internal Security Council," then it must go there and that Council will decide to what extent, if at all, that matter lies within its functions.

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

In other words, the Malayan-controlled Internal Security Council can decide whether or not a Bill is to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure. The power of decision in the 1956 proposals lay with the colonial power; in the 1957 agreement, it lies with Malayans sitting together on the Council as brothers in a common effort for the prosperity of the joint territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. This is a most important and significant gain over what was offered in 1956, and one for which we should be heartily thankful to the All-Party delegates. It is a gain of fact in that it gives an additional guarantee of the freedom of action of the Government, and also serves as a guarantee of the close association of the two territories. We do not expect any practical difficulties in determining what are matters of external affairs or defence, but if there is any doubt, then it goes to the Internal Security Council, and it is most desirable that the two territories, Singapore and the Federation, should be closely linked together in the work of relating themselves to the world around them. They should not regard themselves as separated at home or abroad: they should stand side by side with regard to their internal problems and also to their external problems. If they do not, then gradually or rapidly, our national wealth and our national aspirations will go down and the future will become increasingly dark and dangerous. We need all the friends we can get and, above all, we need our friends in the Federation, and one important aspect of this agreement is the extent to which it makes necessary, and provides opportunitites for, friendship between the two territories, friendship to be expressed in a practical way in the daily affairs of life - not in words, like the ones I am now uttering, which pass over the heads of those around and are lost, but in the actual work of deciding on particular problems, getting down together and seeing whether our minds move on the same track or not. That is the way in which you learn to understand true character, when you work together and can make a judgment on the basis of your work. And that is what I hope we shall get as we work together with the Federation in implementing this agreement. We shall understand how their minds work: they will understand how our minds work. And because we understand, we shall come closer together. We shall see each other's problems, and see our own problems through the eyes of others, and the way will be opened for a considerable advance towards our great objective (which I hope is not too far off) - merger between the two territories.

I will not take further time on this point, Mr Speaker. I have perhaps stressed my points at undue length, to express my firm rejection of this amendment and my firm acceptance of the original motion.

3.54 p.m.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer you once more to the motion standing in the name of the Hon. the Chief Minister? He asks:

"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.'.

Sir, I ask you to compare that with the amendment, which asks the Assembly to "regretfully" take note of the same Report, and then "nevertheless calls for the immediate implementation of the new Constitution.". Sir, why ask for implementation - immediate or delayed implementation - when you do not approve of the points on which agreement has been reached? It does not seem logical to me at all, Sir.

I should like, Sir, after hearing such long speeches, to enumerate one by one the various changes that will be brought about when the new constitution comes into force.

(1) Today, Sir, this island of Singapore is known, or is described, in the statute books of the United Kingdom and in the various Ordinances of Singapore, as the "Colony of Singapore". When the new constitution is brought into force, the word "Colony" will disappear, and the word "State" will replace it. It will not then be the "Colony of Singapore", but the "State of Singapore". That is one of the new things that will be brought about.

(2) The number of 32 Members in this Assembly will be increased to 51, with the following additional changes: the three ex-officio Members will go and the four Nominated Members (including myself) will also go.

(3) My third point, Sir, concerns the Executive. The term "Chief Minister" will be changed into "Prime Minister" and the functions of the Chief Secretary will he transferred to an elected Minister, and the portfolio of the Financial Secretary will also be transferred to an elected Minister. Then the office of the Attorney-General will be discontinued and his functions will be distributed as follows: the ministerial responsibility of departments assigned to the Attorney-General will be transferred to an elected Minister. So, Sir, when we get the new constitution, these three official posts will disappear entirely.

(4) Then we have another change, Sir, number four, regarding the Head of State. Last year, through muddled thinking, if I may say so, Sir, the word "Governor-General" was used. There cannot be and should not be a governor-general when there is only going to be one Governor. The term "Governor-General" is used only when there are governors of various States and one is made the "general" of them all. This year (I do not know how it came about, but I suppose through the influence of the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat) the term "Yang di-Pertuan Negara" has been brought in. That, Sir, will also be a new thing. We shall also have as representative of Her Majesty's Government, a Commissioner. A Commissioner will represent Her Majesty's Government and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara - we are getting quite used to this expression - will represent Her Majesty the Queen.

Another change, Sir, concerns the Singapore Internal Security Council, consisting of three representatives from Singapore, three from the United Kingdom and one from the Federation of Malaya. We do not have it now, but we shall be having it when the new constitution comes into force.

Now, then, Sir, I come to a doubtful point, and that is paragraph 30 of the Report where the Colonial Office-

4 p.m.

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

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.

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