CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS IN LONDON, 1957

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question (29th 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."

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned yesterday afternoon I was dealing with paragraph 30 of the Report, a clause which the Colonial Office has imposed upon us as a condition of the agreement arrived at, a clause which forbids persons known to have taken part in subversive activities from taking part in the first election. Sir, this condition clearly reveals an absolute ignorance, if I may say so, Sir, of the understanding on the part of the Colonial Office of the nature of nationalism that exists today in this part of the world. In this part of the world, Sir, nationalism is very sensitive. People who are fighting for independence do not like an imposition of this nature. It may be, Sir, and I believe it is so, that we ourselves might like to make it a condition that those who are known to have taken part in subversive activities should not be allowed to take part in the first election, but we do not like such a condition to be imposed, if I may say so again, Sir, as if it comes from above.

Sir, yesterday I was enumerating the changes which will be brought about when the new constitution comes into force, and my next point is found in paragraph 36 which reads as follows:

"Her Majesty's Government to have the conduct of external defence and external relations, provided that the Government of the State of Singapore, acting with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, shall have the power to initiate and conduct matters concerning trade and cultural relations with other countries."

This is a new thing, Sir.

The next new thing, Sir, is this consultative machinery. There will be continuous consultation between the Government of the State of Singapore and the Government of the United Kingdom, which Committee will meet at least once a month to discuss any matters affecting Singapore arising from the United Kingdom's responsibilities for external affairs or defence.

Then we already have the Public Service Commission, and this will continue.

The judiciary, Sir, will remain independent, as it is now, and this is most essential because we have been taught and we know that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done; and therefore the independence of the judiciary is of vital importance to the independence of Singapore which is, I hope, coming in the near future.

The other thing, Sir, which is most important and which is entirely new, is the question of citizenship. For the first time, Sir, in the history of Singapore, the aliens will be given a chance to take part in the administration of this territory. For a long time, Sir, mostly the Chinese have been treated as aliens, and when a large group of people living here have been treated as aliens, they will remain aliens, Sir. So this is one of the wisest moves which have been made recently and achieved. These aliens, now being given the right to take part in the administration of the country, will certainly be able in the near future to identify themselves entirely with this country and forget the country of their origin.

I think, Sir, I should not finish my speech and sit down without congratulating the Chief Minister and his delegation for the unity with which the team had worked in London, a unity which I am proud to say the Labour Front Bulletin has described "as amounting to military discipline". Sir, I extend my congratulations to the Chief Minister and his delegation.

10.10 a.m.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had intended, when this session began - it seems a long time ago - to speak on the original motion, and observing how the debate developed following the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, I determined I would hold to my intention, feeling that to speak on the amendment would be rather like intervening in a family squabble. Since then much ground has been covered. Members have reminisced over events that have taken place during the past year, stirring up some sediment in doing so, and drawing back the curtain to reveal secrets hitherto concealed. We have had lectures on constitutional law and on geography and on political economy. So now, Sir, I am still speaking on the amendment, because I fear the terms of the original motion are so limited that I might easily stray into irrelevancies, if ever I had the opportunity of speaking on them.

As a Nominated Independent, I have not a great deal to contribute to this debate, and in any case there can be very little left to say. I do not think I am very greatly interested in attacking the Member for Cairnhill - not that he could not take it - but I feel the House has had enough for the time being of contumely. One has frequently heard the expression "the cut and thrust of debate", but figures of speech relating to the fencing art would be too refined to describe what we have listened to here these last few days. One would have to go to the circus ring or the theatrical burlesque to find the appropriate metaphor.

I doubt, Sir, if this debate has done us very much good, and my sympathies are with the Chief Minister when he expressed his sadness of heart at the way it had developed. I can also imagine the serene politicians of the Federation looking down their noses at the political turmoil of Singapore and washing their hands of us. And speaking of the Federation, while there is something to be said for the logicality of union, I should have thought that we were entitled to more consideration than coming in as just the eleventh State, as I think was suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, if I am not mistaken. The prosperity of this island is not one hundred per cent dependent on the Federation, nor is the entrepot trade, though perhaps declining, entirely due to a geographical accident. It relies greatly on the genius of the local merchants, particularly the Chinese merchants, in anticipating markets in the adjacent and contiguous territories. Our rubber and tin markets, our port facilities, our services in banking and insurance - these various points were mentioned yesterday by the Hon, the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) - are highly developed and we have a lot to offer a co-operative partner.

Regarding the immediate implementation of the new constitution as called for in the amendment, or even its speedy implementation, I have just a word to say. I - we have had a lot of Vitamin "I" in the last few days - I, with a consistency worthy of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is always reminding the House of his consistency and his elephantine memory - I mean, the elephant never forgets - I have always been against this territory achieving independence too quickly and would have liked to see the Rendel Constitution run its four-year course. Ironically enough, in spite of the efforts of Parties in this Assembly, beginning almost before they had studied their Standing Orders or read the Singapore Order in Council, to throw it out, it looks as if it will run tiga suku of its course.

An hon. Member: Ampat suku.

Mr Sutherland: As a matter of fact, my own sojourn in this country is limited and I doubt if I could afford to retire here even if I were willing to risk a ducking in the sea; but I think the Rendel Constitution may yet see me out.

Sir, my own position in this Assembly is becoming increasingly anachronistic. On the first day I sat in this House I was reminded that Nominated Members speak only for themselves. Later I was reminded by the Member for Cairnhill that I represented capital interests and that Sir John Nicoll had so appointed me. Sir John Nicoll in point of fact never said so, nor have British capital interests ever approached me to speak on their behalf in this House - very wisely, I apprehend. However, Sir, I wish I had a mandate today to speak for British capital interests, or even for the British European Association. Nevertheless, Sir, I will tell you what the European business community think about, the result of the All-Party Delegation's mission to London. They think that the Hon. the Chief Minister, who has led this delegation, and whom they regard as a first-class negotiator, has brought back the bacon. They also think that the Chief Minister has brought stability to Singapore following a certain loss of confidence last year, and that he is the best man to cement and maintain friendly relations with the Federation Government.

Sir, I do not think I have any enemies in the House, not real enemies - I am scarcely important or significant enough to incur any serious degree of inimicality - but if anyone feels slightly hostile towards me, I would remind him that, in spite of efforts to acquire a manly tan, my skin remains recalcitrantly white, and my outlook slightly colonial. I cannot, Sir, shout merdeka because I cannot possibly feel that way. But I can understand how the local-born feel and I am absolutely convinced that the bulk of the local population are very satisfied with the result of the London talks, if indeed the ovation given to the returning delegates on the padang was something less than conquering Caesar got on returning to Rome, it was, I think, because the result was a foregone conclusion and the people were already inured to the idea.

In the circumstances, Sir, I must oppose the amendment.

10.18 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I came here last Wednesday I thought that the sitting was going to finish in a day, or at the very most in two days, but it dragged on and on and on, hence we are still here today. In fact, where the original motion was concerned, there was not much to say about it, or there should not have been so many Members speaking on it, had it not been for the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, and that part which started the debate has made us so bored because we have been forced to sit here for one whole week listening to unnecessary speeches.

On the Report itself, Sir, it was accepted by the whole Assembly and it was a mandate of this Assembly as a result of the All-Party Conference where Independents were not included, as they are considered no man's baby. However, Sir, although I am an Independent and I was not consulted - but in the interests of the country and the people - I gave my blessing to the delegation which left here very shortly after the sitting on the 5th of March, because I expected that the delegation would bring back what the people of Singapore wanted. I do not see much to discuss about the Report, though many Members have spoken about it. In fact, I had no intention of speaking at all had it been approved on the first or second day of the session. From what I have heard of the speeches, some were relevant and others were not, so I feel that it is not necessary for me to touch on the Report now. On the question of irrelevance, most of the speeches were in fact directed at the ex-Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill. They were not centred on the motion itself. As you might have heard, Sir, all those speeches were concerned with what happened at the ex-Chief Minister's flat, and what happened during last year's delegation to London. What has all this to do with-

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, are we having a post-mortem on the speeches made in the House?

Mr Speaker: It appears to me that the hon. Member is imagining that he is in this particular Chair. I think the question of relevance or irrelevance is a matter for the Chair and not for the hon. Member.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Sir, I will not touch on the question of irrelevance then. The attack directed at the ex-Chief Minister, however justified it may be, is uncalled for, because I believe that he was very sincere in his fight for merdeka. He fought hard in the interests of the people and the colony of Singapore and I cannot see why all this attack should be directed at him. He failed, and it is not that Mr David Marshall failed. It is the whole delegation that failed last year and all Parties in this Assembly should accept responsibility for that failure and not Mr David Marshall alone.

Mr Speaker: Order. I expect the hon. Member means the Member for Cairnhill?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Yes, Sir, I was referring to Mr David Marshall as leader of last year's delegation and I am referring to the Member for Cairnhill, Sir. Now, as a result of that failure, unfortunately, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is suffering from mental strain - a number of speakers had said so - and what I am afraid, Sir, is that this mental strain is a real torture to him, and with all this attack launched against him, it will be unfortunate if it lands him into hospital. Instead of maybe losing the Member for Cairnhill in a by-election, I am afraid that we may find him a member in Woodbridge Hospital. If there had been an attack on the ex-Chief Minister, Sir, I thought that it should have come from the ex-Labour Fronters - my colleagues the Member for Kampong Kapor and the Member for Farrer Park and I myself - as we had to leave the Party at that time due to his dictatorship. If not for the Member for Cairnhill-

Mr Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Member understood the difference between relevance and irrelevance. I must hold now that what the hon. Member is saying is completely irrelevant.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am sorry, Sir. I will try to confine myself to the amendment.

Sir, there is a Chinese saying, and I will quote it in Chinese since we are going to have multi-lingualism in the Assembly:

"Nan say hoo kee boh hoo toh."

I will try and interpret this in English. It means that "human nature always helps those who are prosperous and progressive and suppresses those who are suffering from poverty and are down-trodden." Why then, Sir, now that the ex-Chief Minister is down should we all direct our attack against him? Can we not give him a chance?

An hon. Member: He asked for it!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Oh, no, not because he asked for it.

Mr Speaker: I have already ruled that what the hon. Member is saying up to now is irrelevant. If he wishes to speak on the amendment, he may do so, but let us not have any more irrelevancies.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I beg your pardon, Sir. I will confine myself to the amendment now. What I could see is just a clash between two personalities. It is not concerned at all with the original motion, because, arising out of this amendment, a challenge has been thrown out and accepted. Why then should we argue on the amendment when it is a clash between two personalities? Let us confine ourselves to the original motion itself rather than argue and argue. I am quite happy that about 70 per cent of the Members have spoken and I think we are not going to waste too much time now and I do hope that we can finish this morning.

On the amendment itself I will now declare my stand - I am not in the least concerned at all. As to the original motion, a mandate was given and I stick to that mandate.

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

Mr Marshall: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clear the lobbies.

Mr Marshall: Would the Chair explain to the House that the second part of the motion is not affected by the amendment?

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Marshall: Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was seeking your indulgence in that matter because the second part of the motion might be deemed to be deleted when, in putting the Question, you say "all the words in (1) are deleted". People may not understand that the words in (2) of the original motion are not affected.

Mr Speaker: What is the hon. Member's point? I thought I had made it very clear.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 22; Abstentions, 6. Ayes Noes Lim Cher Kheng. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Marshall, D. S. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Abstentions Chew Swee Kee. Butterfield, C. H. Ede, John. Lazarous, A. R. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Choon Eng. Goh Tong Liang. Oon Khye Kiang. Jumabhoy, J. M. Seah Peng Chuan. Jumabhoy, R. Stewart, S. T. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Choon Mong. Absent Lim, R. C. H. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Koon Teck. Thomas, Francis. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

10.35 a.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I should say that the proposal for a new constitution which the Merdeka Delegation has brought back with them is an improvement on the present Rendel Constitution. Although it does not make Singapore an independent sovereign State, nevertheless it is designed to confer on Singapore full internal self-government, leaving the responsibility for external affairs and defence still in the hands of the British Government. It was made clear, Sir, by all Parties before the Merdeka Delegation went to London that merdeka could not be achieved by the delegation, but at the most the delegation could only hope for full internal self-government. That was the task which the delegation set itself and the measure of its success must be gauged against this objective. All Parties are now agreed that it is absurd to talk of a sovereign State of Singapore existing side by side with an independent Federation of Malaya and entirely separate from it. Circumstances, however, beyond the control of the people of Singapore have made the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya impossible at present. We have now had time, Sir, to study the proposals which the delegation has brought back. The House has heard all that has been said during the past few days, and there is not much for me to add to what has been said.

Sir, in one of the paragraphs of the Report, it is stated:

"The task of the Conference was to agree upon the provisions to be embodied in a new Constitution for Singapore."

The operative words, Sir, I need hardly point, are "to agree". Unfortunately, there is in the same Report a declaration by the Secretary of State that:

". . .persons known to have been engaged in subversive activity should not be eligible for election to the first Legislative Assembly of the new State of Singapore."

That is to be a condition precedent to the new constitution which Her Majesty's Government would have to impose. Sir, it is obvious that this is designed to exclude from this Assembly leaders of the trade union movement, like the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) and his friends who are now being detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Without such restrictive conditions, popular leaders have been elected to Assemblies and Parliaments while serving prison sentences. Sir, the first Prime Minister of the State of Ghana was elected by the Convention People's Party when he was in prison and at least two Members of Parliament representing the Irish Nationalist Movement were returned in similar circumstances. Of course, these two were prevented from taking their seats. The Members of the delegation have recorded their opposition to this departure from normal democratic practice and have protested against the unilateral imposition of this condition by the Secretary of State. They also told the Secretary of State that they would not accede to this condition. As stated:

"The task of the Conference was to agree upon the provisions to be embodied in a new Constitution for Singapore...".

I do not see, Sir, how the Secretary of State could have taken it upon himself to impose this condition on the Singapore delegation and so make it a condition precedent to the acceptance of the new constitution by the Legislative Assembly. It is not the Secretary of State but the people of Singapore through their elected representatives who will have to work the new constitution. It is only right and proper therefore that the elected representatives of the people in the new Legislative Assembly should be given the chance to work or to operate this new constitution. Furthermore, Sir, it is not as if the Secretary of State was, under the present proposal, powerless to deal with cases of subversion. The British Government have the power, in the last resort, to suspend this new constitution should the need arise and short of the suspension of the constitution, Sir, there is to be a Security Council with which the Government of the Federation of Malaya will be associated. This Council, Sir, is competent to deal with our own domestic problems when such problems do arise. As the British Government has ample powers to deal with subversion, why should this condition be further imposed on the Singapore delegation?

Sir, as a Member closely associated with the civilian employees of the Armed Services, I am sure that the House will understand the great importance I attach to the matters discussed in London by the Chief Minister with Her Majesty's Government. Although these matters were not directly connected with the merdeka talks, the locally recruited civilian employees are concerned over two urgent issues discussed. One, the question of current redundancies caused by the defence cuts following the debacle of Britain's intervention in Egypt. Two, their future when later constitutional changes affect defence and the Armed Services. I therefore urge the Singapore Government to use their good offices to hasten the establishment of the Tripartite Consultative Committee which was agreed to in London and I trust the Hon. the Chief Minister will see to it.

Sir, I support the motion.

10.42 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion. The People's Action Party supports this motion because it means (1) we accept the constitution; (2) without paragraph 30; and (3) , with proper Singapore citizenship.

The amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill and supported only by the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) meant (1) they accepted the constitution albeit with regret; (2) with paragraph 30; and (3) without proper citizenship.

Mr Marshall: Not with paragraph 30.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: With paragraph 30.

Mr Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, if it please you-

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of explanation?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are entitled in this House to read and accept statements at their face value. We know that it is not impossible to twist and turn anything to mean anything that is convenient for the moment. The stand taken by my Party has been challenged by the Member for Cairnhill. I would like to make it clear that this is an issue between the stand taken by the Member for Cairnhill and the stand taken by the People's Action Party. Charges have been made publicly and a challenge has been accepted publicly.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member is going back on the amendment. I am not quite certain but I would ask him to try to keep strictly now to the terms of the motion.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very much so, Sir. Our stand in supporting this motion is as I have stated it. We have been accused of a lot of other things because we took that stand. We will vindicate both our honour and the correctness of our stand in the constituency for which I am the Member. Mr Speaker, Sir, if those who have made these charges choose to forget their challenge, the people can draw their own conclusions.

10.45 a.m.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

The Chief Minister: In reply. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to prolong the debate but there is a point raised by the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim). I would like to state here, as I have already assured the member organisations, that the Government will do everything it can to look after the interests of the workers of Singapore.

Original question put.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clear the lobbies.

Mr Marshall: May I ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether it is possible to take the motion in two parts?

Mr Speaker: No.

The House divided: Ayes, 23: Noes, 2: Abstentions, 5. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid bin Lim Cher Kheng. Haji Jumat. Marshall, D. S. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Abstentions Ede, John. Butterfield, C. H. Goh Chew Chua. Lazarous, A. R. Goh Tong Liang. Oon Khye Kiang. Jumabhoy, J. M. Seah Peng Chuan. Jumabhoy, R. Stewart, S. T. Lee Choon Eng. Lee Kuan Yew. Absent Lim Choon Mong. Lim Ching Siong. Lim, R. C. H. Thomas, Francis. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Wong Foo Nam.

Resolved,

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.