ALLEGED INACCURACIES CONTAINED IN SESSIONAL PAPER NO. CMD. 33 OF 1957

10.19 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion which stands in my name. It reads,

That this House deplores the inaccuracies contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 33 of 1957 published by the Government on the 23rd August, 1957, in justification of the recent purge.

We can understand the colonial power wishing to destroy the P.A.P. It makes no difference to them at this stage of the fight for freedom whether the P.A.P is Communist or non-Communist. We are uncompromisingly anti-colonial and we expect the colonial power to be uncompromisingly anti-P.A.P. But we cannot understand the Labour Front Coalition joining the colonial power in seeking to destroy the P.A.P. It is true we have little time or respect for many of the political rogues in the Labour Front but, surely there must be some social democrats in the Labour Front who should be able to see that it is against the interest of democratic socialism to attempt to destroy the P.A.P.

For a closing down of the P.A.P is what the White Paper has attempted to prepare the way for-a White Paper presented and published by the Labour Front Government in conjunction with the colonial power.

The attempt, Sir, was made in two ways : - First: by the deliberate suppression of certain facts so as to make it appear that the purge was intended to save the P.A.P. from capture by a Communist group - suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. It suppressed the truth that the leaders of this group the Government have arrested were on the point of capturing the Trades Union Congress by the 22nd of August and so by inference suggested the falsehood that the purge was because the P.A.P. had been captured by the Communists. Second: by falsely making it appear in the White Paper that the P.A.P. is a Communist front organisation when the Chief Minister knew as he admitted in his Press conference, reported in the Press of the 25th of August, that it is a genuine political organisation.

The Chief Minister exploited the temporary difficulties of the P.A.P. We the P.A.P. have no Special Branch. Whether a person is a Communist or a Communist agent, only he knows and God knows. Between his conscience and God of course lies the Special Branch and it is up to them to show that these men whom they have arrested are Communists or Communist agents. We know some of these men as a dissident faction in the P.A.P. who tried to oppose and reverse the policy of the last Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P.

But while we were engaged in a fight with this dissident faction, the Government waded in and arrested them and at the same time published a White Paper which made it appear that the Party was thereby saved from penetration and capture by the Communists. And so the Government tried to discredit us. But what are the facts which this White Paper does not disclose? With regard to the trade union position, the White Paper ended on page 6 with a statement in the middle of the page saying:

"On July 18th a meeting of representatives of the S.T.U.W.C. [Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee was held at Middle Road at which tactics for strengthening its organisation and for gaining control of the T.U.C. were discussed."

And there the story ends. We are led to believe that that was the position when the purge began. Can the Government deny that the leaders of this group they have arrested were on the point of capturing the T.U.C. by the evening of the 22nd August when the purge began? Why did the White Paper not disclose that for some time since the return of the Chief Minister's driver Mr Lee Yew Seng (who looks after the T.U.C. for him) returned from his May Day visit to Peking, where a photograph was taken of him and the Chinese Prime Minister Mr Chou En-lai, this group had been making progress with him, that things had reached the point where on the night of the 22nd the so-called 32 unions led by this group were about to be accepted into the T.U.C. and so capture it, leaving the Labour Front without their 'mass' base? Why was it not disclosed that on the night of the 22nd itself when the Police surrounded the premises at Middle Road the so-called 32 unions special committee was holding a meeting to finalise arrangements for their joining in and capturing of the T.U.C.?

Is it not because it would have been acutely embarrassing for the Labour Front to confess that it acted to save the T.U.C.? And can the Government deny that it was this same group that fought the Labour Front candidate in the Cairnhill by-elections where they organised support for one Mr Goh Kong Beng and so split the working class vote and defeated the Labour Front candidate? Why was this episode not disclosed? Had this no bearing on what followed?

There were no civil disturbances on the 22nd of August, no obvious cause for a purge. So the conflict in the P.A.P. was exploited. The Chief Minister thought he could hurt both groups in the P.A.P.: arresting one because he suspected it to be Communist, and by the timing making it appear that the other had precipitated the arrest. To achieve this, the White Paper preoccupied itself with the P.A.P. and the real reason that the T.U.C. was then in imminent danger was concealed. Sir, it is clear that the White Paper must have been prepared quite some time ago for it to have been published on the 23rd of August, the day after the purge. But why, it may be asked, was the purge not made earlier, at the height of the conflict in the P.A.P., so as to embarrass us even more? Was it not because there was an Assembly sitting fixed for the 21st of August and the Government disliked the prospect of an early debate and so waited till the 22nd, the following day?

We know that the Government's action was calculated to embarrass us. This purge and the White Paper were in the making quite some time before the P.A.P. annual conference fixed for the 4th of August. If the Government was as well informed as the White Paper suggests, then they must have been forewarned that a conflict was likely on the 4th of August. The Government waited for this to happen, waited until the T.U.C. was threatened, waited until the Assembly sitting of the 21st was over and then moved in. On the 22nd of August 1957, V.I.P.'s from all over the world were arriving for the Merdeka celebrations in Kuala Lumpur - a most inopportune moment for a purge, for if the mass arrests contemplated had provoked resistance and riots, it would have been most embarrassing for the Government. Yet the Government had to move. I suggest the conclusion is therefore irresistible that the Government had to accept this risk because of a compelling reason - the rescue of the T.U.C., the Government's 'mass' base, from imminent danger. It is therefore dishonest of the Government to have suppressed this vital fact.

But the second way of trying to destroy the P.A.P. was even more dishonest. If the Chief Minister knew that the P.A.P. was a genuine political Party, then why did he not say so in the White Paper instead of making it appear that the P.A.P. is not a genuine political Party but a Communist front organisation? Why say in paragraphs 36 and 37 that the Communists had dominated the Party and would do so for good? Perhaps the Chief Minister has not read paragraphs 36 and 37. Paragraph 36 reads:

"New leaders and organisers have taken the place of those removed. As each month goes by, Communist activities become more frequent and more blatant; and the power of persons known to be Communist grows. Once again the aim is to bring about a united front of workers, farmers and students supported by a favourable press and by political sympathisers. The gravest developments have been amongst the workers. A determined and successful bid for controlling the P.A.P. has been the second feature of recent months. Here the Communists have worked through the cultural, educational and propaganda groups in the P.A.P. and through them have gone far to obtain domination of the whole Party organisation. There has also been revived activity amongst students, farmers, women and "cultural" groups."

Paragraph 37 reads:

"It is evident that once again a serious threat is developing. Communists and their agents are back in key positions daily increasing their propaganda and their power, and steadily strengthening the extent of their control and thus again building up a united Communist front. If the situation is allowed to deteriorate, it will become increasingly difficult to check the threat, and decisive action will be resisted with consequent rioting and blood-shed. From past experience it is quite clear that there is no prospect at all that these legal organisations will be able to purge themselves of Communist influence and conform to democratic and constitutional practice."

Why say in paragraphs 36 and 37 that we the P.A.P. have been dominated by the Communists and they would do so for good? Can it be that this White Paper was not the work of the Chief Minister but of someone else who had got it past the Chief Minister and his elected colleagues.

If the Government was as well informed as it claims to be, it must have known that the P.A.P.'s activities were perfectly legitimate and commendable. We do not pretend that our Party is impervious to Communist penetration. No party is. The M.C.P. is denied political existence and must resort to clandestine methods to enter the constitutional political arena. Does the Labour Front deny that its organising secretary, a confessed ex-member of the Malayan Communist Party, closed down several Labour Front branches because he thought some Communists had gone in? Surely, the Government knew that some of the blatant and crude tactics in disseminating propaganda in the P.A.P. of a kind foreign to our Party's aims and objectives was the work of a few individuals, that the general membership were not parties to this, that the Party leadership was opposed to this, that they had consistently stamped out such activities and that they had been consistently firm and resolute in their non-Communist stand.

But the White Paper tried to make it appear that the Party leadership was weak, effete and ineffective and unable to resist penetration and so the Government had to step in. It says in paragraph 37 and I quote it again:

"From past experience it is quite clear that there is no prospect at all that these legal organisations will be able to purge themselves of Communist influence and conform to democratic and constitutional practice."

Let me tell the Government this, that we in the P.A.P. are quite capable of looking after ourselves and the P.A.P. Perhaps it may be different with the T.U.C. It is the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. only which can settle its own internal problems and the Government's action particularly in publishing this White Paper was calculated to harass and hinder the P.A.P. in its work. Does the Government believe that by this purge they have saved the T.U.C. for ever more? Or does the Government propose to purge again if the T.U.C. is again threatened? But next time, there may not be a conflict in the P.A.P. to be used as a pretext. The effective way of checking peaceful penetration is by peaceful resistance.

The Government has chosen to act in the way it did. Now it is up to them to explain their actions and what is more important to show that they have not arrested innocent people. If the Government thinks that because some of these men arrested have opposed us in the past we are not going to fight for their rights under the law, they are mistaken.

But surely the biggest inaccuracy which is just a parliamentary way of saying falsehood in the White Paper is in paragraph 36:

"A determined and successful bid for controlling the P.A.P. has been the second feature of recent months.... have gone far to obtain domination of the whole Party organisation."

The Communists have not made a successful bid for controlling the Party. They have not obtained domination of' the Party. The non-Communist leadership of the Party had not been ousted. The Government's own action in not arresting seven out of the twelve Central Executive Committee members of the Party is an admission that at its highest even if the Government can prove that every one of the five arrested are Communists or their agents, the Communists are still not in the majority and not in control of the Party. To say as the White Paper states in paragraph 36 that the Communists had obtained domination of the whole Party is manifestly untrue. It was a fabrication by the Government to justify their action. I challenge the Government to deny that they would have carried out this purge in any case because of the threat to the T.U.C. and that they used the so-called Communist domination of the P.A.P. as a mere pretext.

The Labour Front Coalition may try to discredit the P.A.P. but they will never succeed in destroying the P.A.P. We are a virile and a genuine political organisation. We shall always remain so. No one, neither the Labour Front Coalition nor the M.C.P., can discredit or destroy us. The Government may close us down but our movement goes on. We stand uncompromisingly for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya by democratic and constitutional means and we shall not waver from this stand. We believe that by only free competition within the non-Communist democratic system can such a socialist society be achieved in Malaya; that it is not possible in Malaya to achieve Socialism by the Communist one-party dictatorship. In multi-racial Malaya with three major races - Malays, Chinese and Indians - all with differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and even more important, with different political traditions and concepts, the dictatorship of any one party may lead to racial conflict and disaster.

We are not afraid to fight for what we believe in. Our Party policy is fundamentally correct. We have proved it in the past and shall prove it again in the future. The P.A.P. can only be destroyed by the P.A.P. by deviating from our correct stand. Our stand is clear, consistent and unwavering. Our tactics may change according to changes in the political situation. It may be adjusted to fit each phase of the anti-colonial struggle. But we are clear, honest and undeviating in our objectives. And we will not be deterred from these objectives either by threats from the colonial power or from the Communists or from anybody else. The Straits Times, voice of colonial vested interest, will not shift us into a hysterical anti-Communist stand. For Malaya to join the mad crusade of Formosa and South Korea in "liberating" Asia from the Communists will only add grave problems for ourselves. Nor, may I add, will we fulfil the hope of Freedom News, voice of the Malayan Communist Party, that - I quote the White Paper which quotes Freedom News - "P.A.P. inclinations can be changed." We are firm in our belief that the democratic road is the only road possible to a Socialist Malaya and we shall fight to prevent the democratic system from being destroyed in Malaya.

We admit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is a difficult role to play. If you do not accept the embrace of colonialists, then the colonialists charge you with being pro-Communists. If you reject the advances of the Communists, they charge you with being pro-colonialists. We have not the slightest intention of being embraced by or being dependent on either of them. We will pursue our democratic, non-Communist Socialist objectives without regard to whether we please the pro-Communists or the anti-Communist group. We shall fight both to the extent to which they stand in the way of our objectives. Our intention is to build up our strength and our following of people who believe in our ideals and who will be prepared to fight for these ideals. But in this fight we shall not make the mistake of allying ourselves with so-called anti-Communist forces which are often cloaks to hide reactionary elements ranging from colonial vested interests to enemies of democracy.

But now with an independent Federation of Malaya and a new constitution for internal self-government next year for Singapore, a new phase opens in the battle for the future of Malaya. Now the time has come to state precisely what kind of system of government our independent Malaya is to have and what we wish to do with our independent Malaya. That was why we took the Tanjong Pagar by-elections as the opportunity to clarify and re-emphasise our long term objectives-an independent, democratic, non-Communist Socialist Malaya. That the P.A.P. defended the constitutional proposals in the Tanjong Pagar by-elections, that we were resolute in honouring our agreement in the All-Party conference

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): On a point of order, Sir. The hon. Member is reading from a prepared speech.

Mr Speaker: I have noticed that, perhaps, the hon. Member is referring to his notes a little more frequently than he generally does.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Member for Tiong Bahru has never in his life known the importance of putting his thoughts precisely and accurately. We mean every word that we say today. We are not here to make fun and fools of ourselves. Perhaps the Member for Tiong Bahru does not know what is happening in this country and does not know what is happening to himself and his Party. That is his own tragedy.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I was saying, Sir-

Mr William Tan: Speak with your heart.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - that the P.A.P. defended the constitutional proposals in the Tanjong Pagar by-elections and that we were resolute in honouring the All-Party conference agreement and all this was conveniently not mentioned in the White Paper. Instead the Labour Front had the impertinence to pinch our Tanjong Pagar by-election platform without acknowledgment or so much as if you please. They say in paragraph 38:

"The present government stand for the complete internal self-government of the people of Singapore and independence through merger with the Federation.

Sir, why did not the Labour Front candidate for the Cairnhill by-elections put this over on his platform? Why was it not in his election manifestos which were sent to me at 38 Oxley Road where I live in his constituency? Of course, we are flattered to know that the Labour Front has seen the P.A.P. light. But is it not a stupid thing to try and bankrupt us while at the same time borrowing from our political credit?

This White Paper seeks to indict the P.A.P. We are proud of what we have done. If the Communists or anti-Communists misunderstand us and want to make use of the Party for their own ends that is their own folly. We know that our cause will win in the end because our basic policy is correct. Those who fought with us on the agreed Party policy we stand by. But even those in our Party who tried to undermine our policy we do not abandon. It is up to the Government to show that they are Communists or Communist agents. Until then, we shall press for their rights under the law.

Sir, I deplore the inaccurate representation of facts in this White Paper. I deplore the attempt to smear us in the same stroke with which the Government struck down those it considered Communists. I deplore the deliberate suppression of the truth.

I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

10.45 am.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion.

The White Paper (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 33 of 1957), which was tabled before this House on 23rd August, 1957 by the Government in justification of its recent purge, is full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

Sir, what is the reason for the arrest of 39 persons consisting of trade union officials, P.A.P. members and some journalists? The White Paper has not told us the real motive behind the purge. Is the Government trying to impress the public of Singapore that the purge was carried out to save the P.A.P. which the Chief Minister admitted is a genuine political organisation from going to the dogs? Any political party has its own internal problems and we frankly admit that the P.A.P. has its own internal problems. The P.A.P., Sir, is an organisation based on democratic principles and we shall solve our problems in a democratic way.

Sir, the real reason for the purge is this. On the night of the purge, the T.U.C. was on the point of changing ownership and everybody in this country understands what the T.U.C. means to the Labour Front Government. The internal problems of the P.A.P., Sir, can be solved only by ourselves. We are a democratic Party and our general membership is confident of its own capacity to solve our internal problems.

Sir, I have said in this House that there are three forces in the fight for Malaya: the colonialists, the Communists and the nationalists. Due to the fact that the P.A.P. is the most anti-colonial Party in Malaya today, it will be strange if the struggle of these three forces is not reflected in our Party. But where does the Labour Front Government stand? We know from its action since the days of Mr Marshall that the Labour Front is not pro-Communist. Then is it a pro-colonialist party or is it a nationalist party? If the Labour Front is a nationalist party, I am at a loss to see why no mention is being made in the White Paper of the agents of colonialism that we believe have also in great numbers subverted our Party. The Labour Front Coalition Government has been in power for nearly three years and in those three years may I ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, what has it done to capture the hearts and the minds of the people?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have my doubts as to whether the hon. Member can ask that question. It is to my mind irrelevant to the motion before the House. Perhaps if the hon. Member can indicate how it is relevant, I might allow him to continue.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: The White Paper, Sir, condemned the Jurong branch of the P.A.P. for organising a literary class. Let me say this, Sir: this literary class is run by an U.M.N.O. member and he teaches Malay to Chinese members of the Party. Is this not a contribution to the fostering of racial goodwill and the building of a Malayan nation? What has the Labour Front Government done in this connection? In Singapore, Sir, the struggle against colonialism is reaching its climax. Never have the people been more united and determined to obtain the freedom which they deserve. Today in Singapore, our Public Enemy No. 1 is still colonialism. All true nationalists and genuine democrats must unite themselves more solidly than ever in the last lap of the fight against colonialism which is fast retreating from Asia and in the building of an independent, united Malaya through merger with the Federation and then through a non-Communist democratic system we shall constitutionally bring about a Socialist society.

Question proposed.

10.54 a.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House reads that this House "deplores". The White Paper is published on the P.A.P. and its activities. The mover of the motion has given an account of his Party. He seeks the support of the Benches of the Opposition to the motion that this House "deplores". Now how can we who are not members of the P.A.P. know anything about the P.A.P. or what is going on in the P.A.P.? It is only the members of the P.A.P. and they can deplore. On the other hand, the Government has published a White Paper on its activities. I think it is the Government which best knows their activities through the Special Branch or other sources of information.

Sir, I have the greatest respect for the intelligence of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. We may or we may not have agreed on the principles of his Party or he has not agreed on the principles of our Party but I do respect him in that he has always been impersonal. Many a time I have been asked, "Have you spoken anything against what he said?" The main reason is this, that the unity should be preserved in the Opposition Benches as far as possible to make the Government act in the right direction and that is one of the chief reasons why we should not quarrel on the Opposition side. But now he asks us to "deplore". A man of intelligence asking this is rather not understood by us.

Sir, may I ask the hon. mover of the motion two questions? Is he attacking the Government for their action against his Party? Has he also before protested against the arrests of the members of his Party? May I ask who is keeping this Government in power? It is the P.A.P.

Sir, there are a few words in this White Paper which to me are of the greatest importance: "the elected Government in the interest of the people". Now what is an elected Government, may I ask? An elected government in a democratic country means the people's elected representatives who form the government with an elected majority. Out of 25 here, there are ten on the Government side. Is it an elected majority Government?

Mr Speaker: Is that relevant?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I beg your pardon, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. I do appreciate that that subject is near to the heart of the hon. Member but I would ask him to indicate how that is relevant to this motion.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Here is a Government speaking as an elected Government and that is my reference to it. To my mind, Sir, an elected Government should be the majority of the elected Members forming the Government. Now, Sir, that is not so. Then how do they exist? Well, with the votes of the Nominated Members plus the ex-officios; but they dare not vote all the time with the Government on a non-confidence motion against them. They are kept by the P.A.P. in power all the time. Sir, I have said time and again during the Marshall Government before that it is the P.A.P. which supports it, till Mr Marshall honourably retired. Sir, when the new Government was formed, there were only 10 elected Members.

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it then that the hon. Member for Telok Ayer is supporting the motion because he considers that the term "elected Government" is an inaccuracy?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have not indicated yet whether I am supporting or opposing it. I am just asking questions.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member cannot satisfy the Chair as to how his remarks are relevant, then he must desist.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Well, Sir, let me say this, that this motion is on the Coalition Government for what it has done against the P.A.P., or the purge of the P.A.P.; I am asking the question - Does this Government exist because of P.A.P. support?

Now, Sir, the remedy whether the Government should exist or not lies in the hands of the P.A.P. Perhaps the P.A.P. has feared that the Liberal-Socialists might form a Government if the present Government were overthrown, but that is not so. The people on our side, who are always fighting for an elected majority Government, will never form any government and have not even the idea of forming the government, without an elected majority. Sir, the best remedy, may I suggest to the hon. Mover of the motion, is to throw out this Government and have an all-Party Government till the elections come. That will save a lot of cost to the public, if you can manage the Government till election time comes. I hope the mover of the motion will reply to this question I have asked: What is the use of attacking Government when that Government exists on the P.A.P. vote?

The Chief Minister: Will the hon. Member for Telok Ayer be good enough to say that his call for a national Government is a Party call?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: What I say, Sir, is that an all-Party Government of this House should prepare for new elections and it is for the voters to judge which Party should come into power.

The Chief Minister: May I respectfully submit, Sir, that I have not received the information that I asked for?

Mr Speaker: The Hon. the Chief Minister may repeat his question.

The Chief Minister: Would the hon. Member for Telok Ayer inform this House whether his call for a national Government is the stand of the Liberal-Socialist Party?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: It is for the leader the Liberal-Socialist Party to reply that question.

11.05 a.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Well, Mr Speaker, this has been a refreshing interlude in an at other times more serious debate; but I think we ought to return to the main subject before us, after this diversion. Usually, Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party welcome the limelight. In fact they press themselves forward to get into it. But on this occasion they find the light thrown on them by the White Paper is one that shows up their spots and wrinkles, the parts of themselves which they hoped would not be exposed. And I do well understand that the P.A.P. find this White Paper a bitter pill to swallow, because they have been guilty of the errors of judgment which one expects from young men in a hurry. I have great respect for many of the members of the P.A.P., including indeed some of those who are at present enjoying the hospitality of Her Majesty in detention, but it is most tragic to this country that in the confidence of youth and the inexperience of youth, young men of ability and courage and fine qualities should allow themselves to be bewildered and bemused by slogans and catchwords, when they fail to assess reality seriously, when they hasten themselves and their followers on to subject the whole country to most dangerous and ill-advised courses.

There has been in the past a considerable attitude of intellectual self-satisfaction in the P.A.P. I remember that in the very first speech which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar made in this House he laid stress on the extent to which the P.A.P. thinks thoroughly and carefully and weighs its words well before it makes any pronouncement. And of course in the speech he just made this morning, the same thing again - he drew attention to the need to be precise and clear in what he was saying. That is a very laudable and admirable attitude in a political leader and in a political Party, but it is not in itself a sufficient attitude unless the precise decisions are based on a thorough analysis of the real situation.

It appears to me that the P.A.P. thought that they could ride on the shoulders of the Communists to a nationalistic victory. And I might, Mr Speaker, quote not my own views but those of Mr Habib Bourghuiba, the founder of the Neo-Destour Party in Tunisia and now its Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the President of the Tunisian National Assembly, because he has some very sensible things to say on this problem. He writes on "Nationalism the antidote to Communism". He says this:

"One of my earliest companions in the struggle for independence is a case in point. As a student in Paris, at a time when French rule seemed absolutely unalterable and the original Destour movement standing still, he became a member of the French Communist Party, but after he had returned to Tunisia he realised that Communism was a false substitute for his patriotic ideals and he joined me in founding the Neo-Destour Party to fight actively for independence. Today he laughs at his youthful error and finds that his concern for social justice is fully satisfied by the struggle to develop his new country."

Those are the people who have really done a fine job in Tunisia and who have incidentally kept the Tunisian Communist Party, the P.C.T., down to one per cent of the votes actually cast in the last elections. The Communist Party there sought, said Mr Bourghuiba-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, whilst I appreciate the valiant efforts of the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works to play for time while the Hon. the Chief Minister prepares a reply, I do ask whether it is relevant

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that improper motive to be imputed. It is improper.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Whatever the motive, Sir, let us always be relevant.

Mr Speaker: I was about to intervene to enquire from the Hon. the Minister as to how what he said is relevant to the motion, which really is a motion to deplore inaccuracies in the White Paper.

Mr Francis Thomas: Indeed, Sir, what I am seeking to arrive at is related to the speech of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, and I think perhaps I had better refer to that and the irrelevance will be cleared. He said that "the P.A.P. are quite capable of looking after ourselves". He admitted quite frankly that there were Communists in the P.A.P. and that he had been engaged in a life and death struggle with them. But he said, "We knew they had come in. We knew we could deal with them. There was no need for the Government to intervene. We felt that we could deal with them all right by ourselves."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of explanation, Sir, If the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works wishes to have a copy of my speech I will provide him with one but I do ask him not to distort my speech. I said no such things.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am not clear which thing the hon. Member thinks I have misrepresented. I think he did clearly admit that he had Communists in the Party and he was engaged in a struggle with them.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Nothing of the sort. Dissident faction.

Mr Francis Thomas: He had a dissident faction in the Party which he was not able to identify as Communists although the Government was able to. Perhaps it will be in point, Mr Speaker, to leave Mr Bourghuiba for the moment and turn to dates in July and September 1955, that is two years ago, concerning Mr Yong Kok Kim, of whom the hon. Member for Bukit Timah was quoted in the Press as having said:

"I share the same beliefs and have the same aims as Fong Swee Suan and Yong Kok Kim. I therefore challenge the Government to arrest me too." - July 11, 1955.

August 24, 1955, Mr Yong Kok Kim was convicted in an open court of law and sentenced to five years' imprisonment for terrorist activities.

That was one Communist ally whom the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar regarded as a dissident faction, not as a Communist danger.

Well, the point I was making, Mr Speaker, is a little further in Mr Bourghuiba's remarks. He referred to a Singapore journalist's article, "Nationalists hatching Red eggs", published in a Singapore newspaper in 1951, and he regarded it as a very appropriate and intelligent comment on certain types of nationalists. And he goes on to say:

"If a country were to link its political or economic fate to that of the Communists how long could its civilisation endure? A unified philosophy, a unified way of life are essential conditions of national stability."

Now the P.A.P. has a dissident faction but feels it has not got Communists. Well, that is a matter on which discussion is possible but I do not think it can be accepted that they have managed to study their Party with all the care that they ought to have taken.

The hon. Member sought to deal with inaccuracies in the White Paper but what he really dealt with were omissions. He felt that the White Paper was "preoccupied with the P.A.P."- those were his words and I wrote them down. I do not think it is like that at all. The P.A.P. is referred to a number of times but what the White Paper is preoccupied with is the Communist threat which is noted as having its many-pronged advance in its attack on the national unity and national freedom of this territory; and since the P.A.P. was one of the vigorous, active organisations in the nationalist front, of course the Communists sought to destroy them as well as any other Party. And with great respect to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, I feel that we cannot stand by in this country, recognising the Communist danger and yet saying, "We will surrender a Government duty to the public - the duty of securing public welfare - and leave it to the leaders of a political Party who have shown themselves capable of serious errors - leave it to them to purge themselves." They have had a long run. Everyone knew before the elections in 1955 that there were what would become dissident factions amongst the supporters of the P.A.P. Everyone knew during 1955 that the Member for Bukit Timah associated himself with a man who was proved in open court to be a Communist. Everyone has known that ever since, except the P.A.P. leaders themselves, or so they wish us to believe. I have great sympathy with them and I am sure they have been doing their best, and that it is an embarrassment and a difficulty to them that the Government has had to step in and say, "Well, I am afraid you are not winning your fight. It does not look as though you are doing well enough and we have to get you out of your difficulties." Not because we want to help the P.A.P. or to hinder them, but because the country is more important than any particular Party or any particular individual. It is the country which has got to be thought of.

When I read this White Paper I did not say to myself, "Oh dear, oh dear, there is the P.A.P. getting into a mess. We have got to lift them out of the mess and give them a chance to start again." Nor did I say, "Here are these terrible P.A.P. people who have got to be disgraced, degraded, put to shame in the eyes of the public." Neither of those lines occurred to me. I was not thinking of them very much. It seemed to be inescapable that something had to be done and what was in my mind was the welfare of Singapore and of the people of Singapore, which is a matter of real importance and the real objective of good government.

The hon. Member made the point that there were no civil disturbances before this round-up. It seems to be rather a dubious point to make. We cannot be expected always to wait until there is going to be rioting in the streets before people are arrested if necessary. Nobody doubts that when it suits them the Communist Party in Malaya or Singapore or anywhere else in the world will play a legal part. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar knows as well as I do what Lenin wrote in his "Left-wing Communism, an infantile disorder," in which he said that the revolutionary spirit of young Communists is often admirable but they have got to learn political sense; the time for the revolution was when the situation had ripened to the extent that revolution could succeed, and until then the good Communist, the practical Communist, had got to twist and turn and make allies wherever he could, and play a legal part and even, in some cases, appear to go against his principles. Because that was a necessary step towards the ultimate objective and that was the real test of the Communist. It was not his willingness when the revolution had started to go out in the streets and burn and fight and kill; the real test for the Communist, according to Lenin, was his ability to sacrifice that revolutionary ardour for a deeper purpose, a deeper ardour, to go hand-in-hand with his enemies, to lead them along, sweetly smiling, until the time was ripe to stab them in the back. That I am sure the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and his fellow leaders in his Party are now aware of. I doubt if they realised it and applied to their own situation back in 1954 and 1955.

Well, I have always been aware of it, and for a long time it has been the basic danger in Singapore. It is not that the Communists will come out in the open. They know they will be beaten at once if they do. They know the people are not on their side. The danger is of the dedicated right-wing Communists - no adventurism, nothing wild, the man who smiles and shakes your hand and co-operates with you at every stage but is building up his own position for the time when he can destroy democracy and destroy freedom.

It is a very difficult path for the Communists to take. Very often they fail. The Communists' political judgment, Mr Speaker, is often weak. They have intense limitations. Their Marxist dialectic - which is a useful tool but a dangerous one - puts them in blinkers to the realities of the situation, to the need of analysis of the thesis and the anti-thesis and the synthesis. They see the developing situation in too narrow terms and so they lead themselves to misjudge the situation and hasten into ill-advised and dangerous action which in the end, too often for their happiness, nullifies their best efforts and their most well-plotted treacheries.

But we cannot, Mr Speaker, blind ourselves to the very real and permanent danger which this Government has to face from the sustained Communist attack. I have said before in this Assembly that the concentration of attention on the anti-colonial struggle was necessary in the past but that it is essential1y looking backwards and not forwards, and I have urged Members of this Assembly to look forward to the future. The Communists have been playing up the anti-colonial struggle for their own interests here, and in Tunisia and in every other place where they could use that counter in the political game, not because they are sincerely anti-colonialist but because they wish to substitute a Communist imperialism for a capitalist imperialism. And the young nationalist too easily falls for this Communist facade of anti-colonialism.

Mr Bourghuiba - I will refrain from further quoting him in case that is irrelevant - but it is in point because I feel the P.A.P. of Singapore has been led up the same garden path to the same point of danger. Imperialism, on Lenin's analysis, is the last stage of capitalist development. It is marked by the big outflow of capital investment from the imperialist power to the under-developed areas in which it has its colonies. That outflow of capital has substantially ceased. It began to dry up before the last world war. Since the last world war, private capitalist investment has been dribbling away and the imperialist capitalist system has been withering on its stalk for lack of sap to keep it going. And consequently anybody who has seriously studied the situation has said: colonialism is going to end; it may be five years, it may be 10, but the writing is on the wall. That is on the economic analysis of the situation, which is a Marxist analysis if you like to take it like that; if the economic substructure is not there then the political superstructure will collapse. And if the economic flow of capital disappears, then the political superstructure of colonialism must also disappear. The situation has changed in its economic base and consequently the political structure must also change.

But the excitable young nationalist fails to make this analysis and, consequently, ties himself up with the Communists instead of settling down seriously to say, "What shall we do to make this into a country fit for our people when we have control of it?" The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar told us very recently in this House how one of his friends or colleagues now in Changi Prison had said to him, "I say, man! The Federation is getting Merdeka! I say, we must think about this. Oh, I say, we'd better tell the chaps in the jungle to stop their armed conflict. This is getting dangerous. They're fighting against the elected Government." Really, a man who is as slow in his thought as that, who could not see this inevitable development over the last few years, really hardly deserves to be taken seriously.

The hon. Member for Bukit Timah way back in November 1955 said the Emergency has acted as a check on the growth of the activities of all the progressive nationalist forces in this country and has meant the expenditure of large sums of money to exterminate the Malayan Communist Party. All these resources and money, he said, could have been more profitably used for the social and economic development of this country. The Emergency has wasted human life and material resources without achieving a single beneficial result. And that is what Communism has done for Malaya and Singapore, to waste human lives, human resources, and material wealth; and that is what it will do unless it is brought under control and the Communists learn by bitter experience that they are not going to get a free chance to work treacherously for the destruction of the prosperity and wealth of this country, for the destruction of freedom, for the destruction of national unity. That is perhaps the inaccuracy which the hon. Member might have picked on, in that the White Paper has not stressed that aspect - the aspect of the ill-judgment, the errors of the non-Communist members of the P.A.P. who allowed themselves to be led up the garden path.

11.27 a.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion before this House. The White Paper, as a political analysis of the current situation, is naive and immature, but as an attempt at concealment and evasion it is quite a cunning piece after months of tedious labour. However, Sir, it cannot conceal the inconsistencies and the inaccuracies of fact. It is unfortunate that 'he trade unions in this island are divided, primarily, Sir, because of different political affiliations. We all know once the T.U.C. is gone the Labour Front has no "mass" base. The office of the Hon. the Chief Minister and consequently the labour Front becomes shaky. The White Paper did not tell us the fact that were it not for this purge, the T.U.C. may have changed its political complexion and affiliations on the night of the purge. But purge or no purge, Sir, in the long run, the leadership of the trade union movement can only be effectively achieved and consolidated by better organisation, more unselfish work and more sacrifice.

The Federation of Malaya has just won its freedom but the struggle for Merdeka in Singapore through merger with the Federation still goes on. There are three main forces competing for political control of Singapore and Malaya after Merdeka. They are the forces of reaction, the forces of democracy and the forces of Communism. The British, knowing that colonialism is bound to go soon, naturally would want a Party that represents the forces of reaction to succeed them in the control of political power. Sir, most of the moves and counter-moves by the three major forces in this island - and perhaps by other minor forces - are reflected in the internal affairs of the People's Action Party. The reason is very simple. The P.A.P. is a mass Party and is in the vanguard of the anti-colonial movement. The White Paper has openly accused the P.A.P. of being a Communist-front organisation. Why did the White Paper not call the P.A.P. a British colonial-front organisation? For if the White Paper is true then there must be as many Special Branch agents as Communists who have infiltrated into the Party.

Sir, the attitude disclosed in the White Paper is purely negative. It is sterile to be just anti-Communist. Unless we are prepared to work for the people, to educate them and organise them, fill their lives with a sense of purpose and fulfilment, give them the knowledge of reading, writing, of culture, of joining in a worth-while movement to improve their lives and the lives of their fellow-men, to build a new, cleaner and more just society, we have only ourselves to blame if they are led away by those who are prepared to do these things.

My Party, Sir, the P.A.P., is prepared to work and join and lead the people in their movement for a better life for themselves and a better future for their children. So long as we do that there is nothing the Labour Front, or the British or the Communists can do to check the progress of our movement. Whatever the White Paper is trying to do, to damage us by deliberately suppressing and the dressing up of the whole truth, we know we will succeed in the end, on our own strength and on our merits.

11.32 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Mover of this motion has tried to make out that the Labour Front-Coalition Government was trying by the purge of 22nd August to destroy the People's Action Party. I can assure him and the House that the Labour Front did nothing of that kind. The Labour Front Government, if it wanted to, could, by a stroke of the pen, destroy the P.A.P., but it did nothing of that kind, because we maintained - and still maintain - that the P.A.P. is a legitimate political organisation.

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the White Paper. Now, he did not refer to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper, nor did he deny the facts as stated therein. I will read to him paragraph 26:

"It is established Communist policy to make use of suitable political parties and to exploit popular causes such as independence, nationalism and the rights of the workers, - issues which enable the 'masses to be organised' and provide opportunities for trained Communists to secure political power. Known Communists supported the P.A.P. from its formation in 1954."

I repeat, "Known Communists supported the P.A.P. from its formation in 1954."-

"Good use was made of the general election in 1955 to bring to the support of the P.A.P. the full power of the underground Communist organisation in Singapore and to rally all who were sympathetic or potential converts. Selected persons were manoeuvred into key positions, and the P.A.P. was firmly linked with the trade unions in which the Communists were establishing themselves. Communist sympathisers previously engaged in secret Communist plotting were instructed to sever all connection with the underground organisation, to destroy all incriminating secret documents, and to concentrate on overt and perfectly legitimate political work."

Then paragraph 27:

"The Government was reluctant to take action likely to affect the legitimate activities of a lawful political party, but on October 2nd, 1956, it was necessary to arrest under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance a central executive committee member of the P.A.P. in consequence of the Communist Front challenge to lawful authority later in October, no less than 14 office bearers and other prominent members of the P.A.P. were arrested and are still held in detention. They include three of the original convenors of the Party."

It may be unfortunate, Sir, that the White Paper did not specify enough that some of the picnics, some of the cultural meetings were held to inculcate Communism or were the pretexts for indoctrinating Communism into those people who attended such cultural meetings and picnics. Now I wish to point out paragraph 30 of the White Paper, which states:

"In April [1957] the Kampong Kapor branch of the P.A.P. held a picnic of about 300 persons at Loyang at which typical Communist behaviour was observed. And on April 14th another picnic was organised at Loyang of about 1,000 persons, many of whom were of student age. Again there was typical Communist behaviour; and a well-disciplined party from this picnic demonstrated with slogans and songs at a public rally on the Padang that afternoon to welcome back the Merdeka delegation from London.'

It is significant that the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not deny this.

He tried to make out also that the Executive Secretary of the Labour Front closed down several of the Labour Front branches because of Communist influence. I can tell him that no such thing ever happened, and I should know better than he does. He has always stressed that the P.A.P. is striving for a non-Communist, independent, Socialist Malaya; I would like to hear him say that he is striving for an anti-Communist, independent, Socialist Malaya.

11.38 a.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed a strange change of scene this morning. Last year when we took action against subversive elements, there was the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar tabling a motion deploring the arrests and the action of the Government in closing down a number of Communist Front organisations. But what do we see today? He does not deplore the action but rather the inaccuracies which he alleges are in the White Paper. Maybe he has come now to the realisation that his Party is not as clean as he thought it was last year.

Sir, he referred to the annual conference of his Party on 4th August this year. Since that annual conference we have been treated to a series of newspaper reports about the conflict - which he does not deny - that has been going on in the newly elected Central Executive Committee, it was indeed an eye-opener to all of us and we became more acutely aware of the trial of strength in the P.A.P. between the genuine democratic leaders and the Communist Front leaders. This trial of strength could no longer be kept within the Party. The Communist penetration of the P.A.P. can now no longer be disguised!

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and his group of genuine democratic leaders had to surrender power to the Communist group, and this leads us to ask: Does he now speak for his Party or only for himself and his friends? Previously, Sir, he avoided any public comment on the Government's action by saying that he held no office and had no mandate from his Party. Then the new Secretary-General of the Party resigned because of "ill-health". Perhaps, Sir, he has a cold in his feet. Now, Sir, the hon. Member comes to life and puts down this motion, and as I said, Sir, what a motion! He does not seek to deplore the action of the Government but rather the inaccuracies contained in the White Paper in support of our action. What a change of front! What a change of front, September 1957 compared with October 1956!

Sir, I am indeed very sorry that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar should be in this plight but I cannot let my sympathy for him undermine my duty to the public and to Singapore. The threat is real and must not be belittled. We have had enough of riots and disturbances. We cannot sit by and watch the Communist Front reorganise and corrupt the minds of the workers and the simple people. If the genuine democratic leaders of the P.A.P. will not act, then we must, and we will.

Talking of inaccuracies, Sir, the hon.. Member for Tanjong Pagar is of course well placed to know exactly what goes on inside the various branches and committees of the P.A.P. And on many points of detail he may well be more accurately informed than the Government, but minor inaccuracies on points of detail do not affect the main conclusion of the White Paper. The truth is - and the hon. Member knows it to be the truth - that the P.A.P. has been penetrated by Communists. Control of the Party's education and propaganda organisation has clearly passed into the hands of those who, knowingly or recklessly, are working for the Communists.

It is no good the hon. Member trying to explain away the evidence, to dismiss it as exaggerated, or to belittle the threat to Singapore. He himself, too late, on 4th August, 1957, tried to check the control of the Communists and their sympathisers on the Party. Sir, why has he allowed the P.A.P. to be penetrated in this way? He was in the best position to purge the Party of those who would use it only to destroy freedom and genuine democracy in Singapore. As a genuine Socialist and a genuine democrat, he had a duty to fight Communism, but for two years now he has preferred to try to ride a tiger. Why? Why? Why? We all know the answer. We also know that he is being used by these people for their own ends and will be thrown overboard as soon as they no longer require him. It will not surprise us to learn that these people no longer now require him.

The present Government, Sir, is not prepared to sacrifice the interests of Singapore for a temporary political advantage. We will do our duty cost us what it may. We will do our duty cost us what it may!

Sir, we do not maintain in the White Paper that all actions of the P.A.P and its branches, or all members of the P.A.P., are Communist. No. But what we do maintain is that the Party has been dangerously penetrated by Communists and their fellow-workers, and they are misleading and gaining control of the Party. Seven out of the 19 P.A.P. arrests are identified members of the Communist secret organisation. Seven out of 19!

Sir, I know when I faced the duty of checking the Communist threat that any action taken against members of the P.A.P. will be criticised - as it has been criticised by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar - as using the pretext of the public interest to damage an opposition political Party. But the situation was so grave and the duty to act so strong that my colleagues and I were prepared to face that criticism rather than shirk our duty. We are prepared to face that criticism rather than shirk our duty! Our conscience is clear. Is his conscience clear? I wonder! We have set out the grounds for our action, We are content to be judged by Singapore.

Sir, I am astonished and saddened that any responsible person should suggest that the Government should allow the Communist threat to develop unchecked until it is able to challenge lawful authority by violence. We have had violence enough in Singapore. We have seen the technique of those who seek to create conditions of chaos and the violent overthrow of a democratic form of Government in Singapore. We saw how they exploited the Hock Lee strike in 1955, how they attempted to awe the elected Government by a general strike the same year. We witnessed with horror the days and nights of rioting in October last year. We should be failing in our duty if we did not use the powers to prevent disorder and violence. The Preservation of Public Security Ordinance gives us the power of detention to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the authority of Malaya or the maintenance of public order therein. It is in the discharge of that duty laid upon us by this Assembly that we have acted, and the general grounds of our action are given in the White Paper. The case, Sir, against each individual now detained will be considered by the Appeal Tribunal under the law. Our duty is to preserve security rather than to restore order after riots. Our duty, Sir, is to preserve public security rather than to restore order after riots!

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, can speak about the T.U.C. The T.U.C. will be in a position to reply to all the allegations that he has made. It is not the duty of the Government to reply, but I will say this: that it is not true to say that the Government is taking this action in order to save the T.U.C. The T.U.C. will, in due course, let the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar know what had been going on between the evil forces in Singapore and their democratic forces, and who were winning them. It is not true to suggest that.

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, tries to say that out of 12 members in the Central Executive Committee only five were Communists. 'Therefore there are still seven of us who are in the majority; therefore we will win in the end; we will win the fight.' This description of the P.A.P. as having been penetrated by Communists, and that the leaders of the P.A.P. were weak and were not able to meet the threat is all wrong because we were seven against five. But I may point out to him, Sir, that if the Secretary-General of the P.A.P., of that group, had not suddenly got cold feet because five of his comrades had been taken in under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, he might not have seven; he was having six against six.

Sir, the Government opposes the motion before the House.

11.52 a.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar asks us to deplore the inaccuracies contained in the White Paper, and as we in the opposition Party are not in a position to know the full facts of what is accurate and what is not accurate, we have to rely on the statements made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and by the Hon. the Chief Minister in this House.

It is the first time that I have seen the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar break down in what must be the most important speech of his life. He has always moved us with his eloquence, spirit and warm-heartedness, but this morning he was surprisingly cold. Every word of what he said this morning was read from a prepared speech and -

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that. That is a very serious reflection on the Chair.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: My humble apologies, Sir. Anyway, the way he delivered his speech this morning has left us, particularly me, absolutely cold. It does not seem to have voiced his real thoughts.

On the other hand the Chief Minister has moved me a great deal. It seemed to me he was speaking with absolute sincerity for the concern of the public and the peace and safety of all the peoples in this country. What he is doing is to prevent riots, not to stop them. His chief point is that he is trying to prevent riots and disorders before they start, rather than to stop them or have to meet them half-way; and we all agree with him that we have had enough disorders and riots, and all law-abiding citizens will agree with me that any measure to prevent such disorders at their inception should be welcomed by all of us.

Sir, it must be a very painful job for the Government or for anyone to have done what Government has done in trying to enforce law and order. We in the opposition, if we want the safety and the peace of our country not to be disturbed, then it is for us to stand by Government when it is prepared to do all the things which must be very distasteful to it and at the risk of its political future.

Sir, I for one say that when there is a shooting war in the Federation and a cold war in Singapore, it is for us, all law-abiding citizens, to support the Government in its stand to keep peace and security in Singapore, for without peace and security Singapore, a trading centre, will cease to exist.

11.56 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in reply?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Not, Sir, unless the Chair wishes to sit till half-past twelve or later.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member then anticipates that he will be speaking for half an hour?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is it the wish of hon. Members that we suspend?

The Chief Minister: No objections, Sir.

Mr Speaker: There are no objections. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.57 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m..

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, this morning the Hon. the Chief Minister challenged my credentials when he enquired whether I spoke for my Party or whether I spoke for my friends in the Party. I would like to tell him and every other Member in this House that this motion and my speech in support of it were the decision of the Emergency Council of the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party. We are the leadership of the Party. If for one moment I believed I no longer represented the views of my Party, I - and I have my colleagues' mandate to say this, - they and I would not stay for one moment longer than necessary in the Party or in this Assembly.

The Hon. the Chief Minister has to make up his mind what his line is - whether we are Communists or whether we are a genuine political Party. He said this morning that of the 19 members of the Party arrested, seven had connections - I have forgotten the exact words - but seven out of the 19 had connections with the M.C.P. I assume, therefore, that the other 12 are included in the category referred to in the last paragraph of the White Paper, in the sentence:

"Those who recklessly and knowingly allow themselves to be used by the Communists, or uncritically and unwarily accept their easy and deceptive slogans, or deliberately create conditions which make easier the path of Communists to power, must be checked."

There are 10,000 members of the People's Action Party. Does he say that these 10,000 members come in that category, or does he say only 19 out of the 10,000 come within this category? Let me tell him that we were elected at a Party conference on 4th August, at which we put the issues very fairly and squarely. The Minister for Communications and Works challenged our wisdom, according to him, of riding on the shoulders of the Communist Party to a nationalist victory. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, one other Member in this House in April this year made some similar foolish accusations, We took him to task. We went back to Tanjong Pagar and vindicated our stand, and that Member has suffered a premature political demise.

Sir, this is my mandate, and I say that no other Member in this House has a more clear-cut or fresher mandate than myself, given on 29th June this year, and I would like to tell this House what this mandate is. This is from my election manifesto sent to 12,000 voters in Tanjong Pagar in which my Party stand was clearly stated:

"On 2nd April, 1955 you elected me as your representative in the Legislative Assembly. This by-election is not a fight by me to get a seat in the Assembly as I could have stayed on in my seat. This by-election is to find out if you who elected me as the P.A.P. candidate in April 1955 approve of the stand that I as a member of the P.A.P. and of the recent constitutional mission to London took on two issues, which are the constitutional proposals and the anti-subversion clause. If you agree with my stand and the P.A.P.'s, methods in fighting for an independent, united Malaya, then you can show your approval and your trust in my Party by giving your vote for me," And in bold type what the P.A.P, believes in:

"1. To end colonialism and establish an independent, united Malaya.

2. To create a democratic, non-Communist Government of Malaya.

3. To abolish the unjust inequalities of wealth and opportunity of the present social system, and provide equal opportunities for all.

4. To build a Malayan consciousness among the people of Malaya.

In essence we stand for an independent and democratic Malaya. This means that we must first get rid of colonialism by non-violent and constitutional means."

And again in bold type:

"What is the most effective and practical way of fighting against colonialism? We must crush colonialism, British colonialism, strong and cunning. We need several rounds to knock them out. The first round is to expose the Rendel Constitution."

And let the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works remember that in 1954 Mr C. C. Tan, and even the Hon. the Chief Minister, proposed a constitution which, according to Mr C. C. Tan, should last for eight years. We are not ashamed of the fact that we mobilised the people in opposition against what we considered a lousy and a rotten constitution. It is our work that brought about a change in the attitude of the British Government in 1956-57. This we have done.

"The second round is to fight for a constitution which will give Singapore internal self-government, This we have in the new constitutional proposals. This is not Merdeka; this is not independence. I have honestly and sincerely told the people of Singapore each time before I went to London for the constitutional negotiations with the Colonial Office that we are demanding 75 per cent Merdeka. The island of Singapore, with its one-and-a-half million inhabitants cannot become an independent nation by itself. We can only attain independence through a merger with the Federation. 'Independence through merger' - that is our battle-cry in the third round with British colonialism."

That, Sir, is the P.A.P. mandate on 29th June this year which, I am glad to note from the White Paper, has been adopted by the Labour Front. I would like now to answer two important points which have been raised in the course of this debate. Now it has been suggested by the Hon. the Chief Minister that we have not been consistent. Last year we were ferocious, we were brave in opposition to the Government; this year we have become mild and timid and timorous. Mr Speaker, Sir, genuine political leaders do not get cold feet. In an emergency, courage is what we show and our policy is dictated not because we have got cold feet, not because we are afraid to be locked up by the Hon. the Chief Minister and his colleagues, but because of our principle and our policy. We say quite clearly, and I said it this morning at the end of my speech, that those who fought with us on the agreed Party policy we stand by; but even those in our Party who tried to undermine our policy we do not abandon. It is up to the Government to show that they are Communists or Communist agents. Until then we shall press for their rights under the law.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position this year is well known to anybody who has been following political trends in Singapore. I would like to read an excerpt from the annual report of my Party which the last Central Executive Committee presented to an annual conference. And this will explain the consistency, the honesty of our stand. We said, on page 5 of this report:

"1957 Merdeka Mission: In March this year, an all-Party delegation left for London to reopen talks for a constitution giving Singapore internal self-government. Our Party delegate was Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The delegation was charged with a mandate agreed to previously at an all-Party convention. The minimum demands were agreed to unanimously by the Central Executive Committee at the end of February 1957. One of the decisions made unanimously by the Central Executive Committee at the meeting on Saturday, 2nd March, was to postpone the fresh elections under the new constitution from the target date of August 1957 in order to allow time for the new Singapore citizens to be registered and given the right to vote at the elections. The length of the postponement would depend on the period set aside for registration. It was estimated that for a registration period of six months, a years delay was probable.

Tanjong Pagar By-election: When the Party delegate was in London, certain trade union officials joined Mr David Marshall in attacking the Party for the decision to postpone the elections until registration of new Singapore citizens and attempted to coerce the Party into reversing its decision. The Party delegate returned with the all-Party Delegation on 14th April, These attacks on the Party continued. The proposed agreed constitution giving only internal self-government was also attacked by Mr Marshall and this group. In the debate in the Legislative Assembly on the constitutional talks, these attacks culminated in a challenge by Mr Marshall to the Party Secretary to resign and fight him in a by-election in Tanjong Pagar. Three days later Mr Marshall announced that he had retired from politics and did not intend to contest the by-election. In view of the malicious attack made on the Party, the Central Executive Committee decided to place our record for the judgment of the electorate.

The issues we placed before the electorate were:

Immediate: 1. Accept internal self-government in the new constitutional proposals.

2. Reject clause 30 banning subversive elements from taking part in the first general elections.

Long-term: 1. To end colonialism and establish an independent, united Malaya.

2. To create a democratic non-communist government of Malaya.

3. To abolish the unjust inequalities of wealth.

4. Malayan consciousness."

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this year the position is quite simple. The first attempt - and this is for political innocents in this House who have not, or who are unable to read between the lines of political events - the first attempt to undermine the Party policy was in March this year. On 2nd March, 1957, at a full meeting of the Central Executive Committee, we decided unanimously to have registration of the new Singapore citizens first, and then elections for the Legislative Assembly under the new constitution. The White Paper giving the mandate to the all-Party Delegation for the London Constitutional Talks was also agreed. The shortcomings of the constitution giving only internal self-government was fully appreciated by everyone. On Sunday, 3rd March, these decisions of the Party, my Party, were announced publicly at our Paya Lebar Branch conference. On the 6th our Party Assemblymen voted for the all-Party White Paper on the Legislative Assembly debate. On Friday, 8th, I left for London.

While I was in London attending the constitutional talks, a group in Singapore, which included some political adventurers in the Party, started agitation for registration for new citizens after, not before, elections. This group made use of the names of 19 unions, and statements were issued condemning the decision to register new Singapore citizens before general elections. But the firm and resolute stand of the Central Executive Committee, supported by the majority of our Party members, foiled the plot of this group. They stood by the mandate to the Party delegate and the plot to have him disavowed, to have me disavowed while I was away at the talks, failed. This was the first act in a series of left-wing adventurism of this dissident Party faction.

Now, having failed from within the Party, they tried to coerce the Party from without, and they exploited the personal and political weaknesses of Mr David Marshall and instigated him to challenge the Party stand. Mr Speaker, Sir, in April this year I do not think many Members in this House understood what was going on because they are only concerned with the superficialities of political cross-talk. But we were not concerned with the personal likes and dislikes of Mr David Marshall.

However, when our stand was challenged and when Mr Marshall happened to be the tool, the agent through which the challenge was made, we had no choice but to accept the challenge. On 28th April, Mr Marshall, taking the line of this group, attacked the Party, attacked the new constitution, asked for registration of new citizens after general elections, proposed some fantastic scheme of registration by way of Identity Cards. But after we had accepted the challenge this group of adventurers backed down and Mr Marshall announced his retirement from politics. But we went on with the by-elections and put the issues fairly before the people. We won that by-election by a decisive majority against both the Liberal-Socialist and an Independent, one Mr C. H. Koh.

But several issues arose out of the by-elections in Tanjong Pagar and Cairnhill. This group opposed my Party's stand on Merdeka through merger with the Federation. They wanted immediate independence for Singapore alone. In Cairnhill, this group organised support for Mr Goh Kong Beng, the Independent candidate, who was to have formed a Party with Mr C. H. Koh, who was contesting against us in Tanjong Pagar. We issued a directive to all branches of the P.A.P. not to interfere in the Cairnhill by-election by supporting any candidate but this group, principally non-P.A..P. members, went on. The result was the victory of the Liberal-Socialist candidate; the result was our new Member for Cairnhill. Those are the hard facts of life and we had better know how things came to be what they came to be.

We say we who have stood by the principles and objectives of our Party cannot be responsible for those who have sought to undermine the authority of the Party, harnessing it towards ends unconnected with the aims and spirit of the Party. We know that they are a dissident faction but on this we stand firm: that their rights under the law must be respected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Labour Front today spend some time to show what they were doing for the cause of an independent, democratic Malaya. Let me tell them that a purely negative approach cannot succeed. If you are unable to make democratic socialism a living reality, if it remains only an empty slogan, it is unlikely ever to enthral the hearts and minds of the people. To be able to make it work one must be prepared to work and to organise. That is what we have been doing in the P.A.P. and we are not ashamed of it.

We would like to remind the Labour Front Government that democracy and political stability cannot be brought about just by periodic mass arrests. A government which relies only on purges and has no positive programme with which to win over the people to the democratic cause is doomed to failure. People will not support democracy just because a government is content to mouth slogans about the superiority and desirability of it. A Socialist government which can convince the people that under its rule things are getting better, will get even better, will be in a position, should be in a position, to bring the masses round to their point of view.

In so far as the activities of my Party have been challenged in the White Paper, particularly in paragraph 30 which has been raised by the Hon. the Minister for Education, I think it is dishonest of the Government not to disclose at the same time that we castigated those who, against our policy, decided to make use of that occasion to humiliate the hon. Member for Whampoa. If our policy had been wrong, then I say we deserve to be castigated. But our policy has been consistently correct. For the Labour Front Government to try openly to implicate the whole Party in all the zigzags of tactics for which we were not responsible is, in my opinion, downright unworthy tactics.

If the Labour Front Government is as well informed as a government should be, as it has claimed to be in this White Paper, then why has there been no presentation of the whole truth; why just parts of a whole? Why has there been no denial this morning that on the night of the 22nd at the time the raid was made on the Middle Road premises there was a meeting going on to finalise arrangements to join the T.U.C.? Or was the Hon. the Chief Minister not aware of it? Does the Minister for Education deny that he did know how Mr Keng Ban Ee was defeated in Cairnhill? Can he deny that that did not come into the calculations of the Government's final decision of what to do in regard to this situation? Why was that denial not made this morning? Why was the onus put on the P.A.P.? The whole of the White Paper is designed to discredit us. The whole of this attack this morning is - designed to say that 'we have weakened,' that 'we are afraid'. Let me tell the Hon. the Chief Minister this: but for the facts we have recited we would have no hesitation in attacking the Government. We take our stand on principle because of what happened in the London constitutional talks, because of what happened in this Assembly, because of the Tanjong Pagar by-elections. That is the reason for our stand on this White Paper.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 22; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 7. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim, Abdul Hamid bin Goh Chew Chua. Haji Jumat. Lee Kuan Yew. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Ede, John. Goh Tong Liang. Goode, W. A. C. Absent. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy,R. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Choon Mong. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Ching Siong. Mak Pak Shee. Lim, R. C. H. Mohd. Sidik bin Sutherland, G. A. P. Haji Abdul Hamid Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan, William. Abstentions Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Nil.

Motion accordingly negatived.