PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.23 a.m.

The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In Sessional Paper Cmd. 33 of 1957 the House was made aware of the Communist threat to Singapore and the tactics employed by Communist Front supporters in their efforts ultimately to establish a dictatorial Communist state. Since the Command Paper was published, there have been continuing attempts by supporters of Communism to undermine the authority of the Government and it has been necessary to detain a number of subversive elements who had succeeded in establishing themselves in positions of authority in respectable democratic institutions.

In August 1957 subversive elements succeeded in gaining control of the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party and were actively engaged in promoting the interests of the Communist Front amongst students and trade unions. Had these activities been allowed to continue unchecked, there is little doubt that they would shortly have presented a grave threat to the security of Singapore. The Government accordingly decided to take action under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance against these evil forces. The justification for such action was amply proved when out of 20 P.A.P. leaders arrested, two confessed to being Communists, five were identified as members of the Communist under around organisation, and the Appeal Tribunal confirmed the detention orders made in every single case. At the same time, it was considered necessary to arrest and detain 15 so-called trade union leaders who were known Communist Front workers. In their cases also the Appeal Tribunal confirmed the detention orders. From statements made by those detained and from documents seized at the time of their arrest, there was ample evidence to show the intentions of these people to penetrate legal, democratic organisations in Singapore and, after assuming control, to exploit their legal aims in the furtherance of Communist policies.

While some Communist extremists were concentrating their attention on political parties and trade unions, others were directing their efforts to the subversion of students. It was known that a number of student members of the Communist Front were responsible for organising student picnics and social gatherings for the purpose of indoctrinating those who attended with Communist ideologies. At the end of September 1957, following the arrest of the ringleaders of this campaign, 19 detention orders were made and confirmed. Documents recovered during Police operations against these students proved the Communist sympathies of those arrested.

Early in 1958 Communist sympathisers turned their attention to a campaign designed to inculcate in the population feelings of hatred and dissatisfaction towards democratic government and the existing social order. So-called "cultural companies" published or distributed booklets criticising the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and praising the Communist terrorists in the Federation as patriots and fighters for their motherland, Malaya. In an operation in March 1958, the Police raided 8 premises and recovered over 2,000 of these undesirable booklets. Evidence was obtained which showed that these "cultural companies" were distributing the undesirable publications in the Federation and in Sarawak and further evidence proved the association of one of the companies with Malayan Communist Party members in Johore.

By May 1958 information was available to the Police that Communist "power groups" still exist in Singapore and are made up of highly indoctrinated and experienced Communist personnel. The duty of these power groups is to use their influence in specific operations such as election campaigns or the capture of control of trade unions or political parties. Information has been received that extremist control of the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee was achieved in precisely this manner in August last year. In June this year, Sir, members of this "power group" were arrested and 8 detention orders have been made and confirmed. Two of these detainees have disclosed that they were under instructions to penetrate the P.A.P. and trade unions and organise Communist activities in these legal bodies.

Sir, the detentions which have been made and confirmed by the Appeal Tribunal since the second half of 1956 provide a clear indication of the ceaseless vigilance which is necessary to thwart the activities of a small but entirely unprincipled section of the community which seeks to overthrow parliamentary democracy, and impose upon the great mass of law-abiding citizens a totalitarian system of government.

No freedom-loving people will lightly approve legislation which permits of detention without trial. It must however be borne in mind, Sir, that a great part of the information which leads to action against the Communist and their fellow-travellers is gathered from erstwhile accomplices or comrades, or from persons whose lives would be in jeopardy if the fact of their providing such information were known to the Communists, and for this reason, Sir, such evidence cannot be published in open court.

In the light of the events of the past three years and the strong evidence that powerful influences are still at work with the intention of overthrowing the present form of democratic Government in Singapore, it is the clear duty of the Government to retain the extraordinary powers given to it under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in order to protect the security of the citizens of Singapore. The new Constitution which is to come into force next year is a rich prize indeed and we must do everything in our power to see that the Communists do not capture this prize.

Sir, the Government asks for the extension of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for one year only and the power to extend current detention orders by one year only, in order that the next Government, the first Government of the new State of Singapore, may be elected and take up office in propitious conditions and may have a few months to make up its mind on whether or not there is a need for further legislation to give it extraordinary powers of arrest and detention to deal with the dangers to security against which, in present circumstances, the ordinary processes of law are inadequate defence.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

10.31 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, this new amending Bill to the original Ordinance has come as a big surprise to the people of Singapore.

Clause 2 of this Bill seeks to extend the period of the Ordinance from three to four years. I cannot see the necessity for extending the period of that Ordinance.

The Chief Minister just now quoted the activities of the P.A.P. leaders and the students. All these P.A.P. leaders and the students who were considered subversive at that time are now under detention; some of them have been banished. So I cannot see any reason why the life of this Bill should be extended.

When the Ordinance was first introduced, the then Chief Minister who was the architect of this Bill, had this to say. I quote from column 702 of the Hansard dated 21st September, 1955:

"Sir, there have been some criticisms - on the face of them legitimate, and some of them, in fact, very constructive - directed against this Bill. The first one I will deal with is that it seeks to make law for three years what has so far been law for only three months at a time. In the past we had to renew this law every three months. The question of renewal of a law every three months was based on the concept of the existence of an emergency."

He went on to say:

"This Government has never avoided, and so long as I survive" -

unfortunately, he never survived his term of office -

"on this side will never avoid its responsibilities. and instead of making it four years and 'passing the buck' to the next government, we will have to face this House, at least five months before its dissolution...".

Sir, as I said, unfortunately, the then Chief Minister did not survive his term of office or else he may now have to swallow his own words. He has clearly stated, Sir, that he did not intend to make this Ordinance a permanent one. If that is so, why then extend the period from three to four years? If it is not going to be permanent, it should not be extended. By extending the period for one more year, there is the likelihood that it may again have to come to this House for a further extension. After one year and another, it may then become permanent. Is this the policy of the Government, Sir, and if that is so, is it the intention of the Government to tie the hands of the next Government which may come into power?

This Ordinance, originally introduced and approved, came into operation on 21st October, 1955, which means that it will expire on 21st October this year. With this amending Bill, Sir, the period will then be extended to 21st October, 1959. Sir, let us look at it this way. How long is the life of this Assembly? When will this Assembly be dissolved and when is the next election to be held? According to the Chief Minister, he said that he will have the election by March next year. Then if the election is to be held by March next year and the life of this Assembly is up to March next year, why extend the life of this Ordinance further than March, 1959? I think the Government is trying to pass the buck to the next Government, according to what the then Chief Minister who framed this Ordinance said.

New clause 3 of the Bill, Sir, seeks power to be given to the Chief Secretary if the Governor in Council is satisfied to extend the period of detention for two years to a further period not exceeding 12 months at a time. Again, Sir, when the Ordinance was passed, it was on the very clear understanding that the period of detention would only be for two years and no more. Why this sudden change of attitude, Sir, on the part of the Government? Is it to prevent our colleague the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) from contesting the next election? Is that the intention of the Government so that he may be further detained while the Assembly dissolves and we contest the next election? If so, let the Chief Minister say so.

Sir, this Bill has caused a lot of misery to the people of Singapore.

An hon. Member: Ha, ha!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Oh yes, certainly quite a lot. It has resulted in my tabling a motion on 21st April this year on the torture of detainees. The Hon, the Chief Secretary is holding his head because he denied at that time that there was torture by the Police. Whether that is true or not, I leave it to the public to decide, it has been debated and I am not prepared to debate it further. If any Member would like me to refresh his memory, I would refer him to columns 263 to 270 of the Hansard (Vol. 3). There he will find reference to the torture. Apart from this alleged torture, I have on the Order Paper another motion in my name. This is again as a result of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. This time it is not about torture, it is about banishment and I will come to that later.

The Chief Minister: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member anticipating a debate on his motion?

Mr Speaker: I was watching that very carefully and I do not think he has gone as far as that.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I said that I would come to that later and not now.

Sir, under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, detainees born, bred and educated in Malaya were deported to China. Now I cannot understand the policy of the Government. When these detainees were arrested, they were arrested under this Ordinance and not on a banishment order.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member now touching on his motion? If he is, he is out of order.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am sorry, Sir. I was just trying to state what harm this new Bill will do to the people of Singapore. I would therefore appeal to the Members of this House not to accept this Bill. As I have said, it is a question of whether the people of Singapore will accept this Bill. With all the experience of alleged torture - I call it "alleged" instead of "actual" because the Chief Minister denied it - and of banishment, I am sure that the people of Singapore do not want this Bill at all. I am against the Bill.

10.40 a.m.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to protest against this Bill. The Chief Minister has just given a catalogue of reasons why he thinks such an undemocratic measure is so necessary for the democracy of Singapore.

Sir, I must say that since last year, many people have been arrested and detained, and no valid reasons were given to this Assembly or in public why a few people have been released and many of them are still in detention camps. One example I have in mind is the recent release of Dr Chuang. He was released immediately after the defeat of the Labour Front in the Kallang by-election. One would have thought that probably he was detained because he was plotting against the Labour Front election.

Sir, the Chief Minister is not the first politician who, in the name of democracy, seeks to destroy democracy by jailing his political opponents. There were men before him and there might be men after him to follow his procedure. When I look at the vacant seat of the Member for Bukit Timah which was caused through the operation of this Ordinance, I feel like asking this House to observe two minutes' silence in honour of that Assemblyman.

Mr Francis Thomas: Silence by you in the House!

Mr Lazarous: Yes. The Member for Bukit Timah who continues to represent his constituency in that national assembly which is popularly known as Changi Jail.

Sir, from a brief study of Asian history, I am convinced that many of the Asian leaders emerged from British political prisons and I know that the men who sit in Changi Jail will soon grace the seat of power, and when they do come to power and the same Ordinance is in force, how many of us who sit in this Assembly will conduct our debates in Changi Jail is a matter for conjecture. Sir, 1 said once that a man who holds the gun will say the other man is a subversive. So we will know, when these people who are in Changi Jail are released, what the result will be for all the people who are supporting this Bill. I do not, if possible, want to go to Changi Jail and this is the reason why I oppose this Bill.

10.44 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I should have thought that as there are seven Liberal-Socialist speakers as against three P.A.P., they would have given me the courtesy of speaking later on in the debate, but they are just moral cowards.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that expression is unparliamentary and he must withdraw it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very well, Sir. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling -

Mr Speaker: Has the hon. Member withdrawn the expression?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I have withdrawn it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we meet to discuss the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in circumstances and conditions which are quite different from what they were three years ago, but the speeches by the two illustrious Members on the Opposition side, serve to remind us how little one can learn in three years. I was sorry to hear the Hon, the Chief Minister read his recital of subversive activities since the Bill was passed three years ago. It did not carry that ring of conviction of someone who had been intimately associated with the problem. It sounded like a recital having been composed and prepared by someone else. We, Sir, in the People's Action Party compose and prepare our own symphony, and I came to this House today with a statement on (1) what we intend to debate, which is important, and (2) what some people might want to know about what we intend to do next year.

We welcome the form in which the extension to the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is being sought, as an amending Bill to extend it from three to four years - one extra year to cover the extended life of the Labour Front Coalition Government until it dies with this Assembly in April next year.

It makes it easier and simpler for us to state our position clearly and succinctly. Three and a half years ago, the People's Action Party fought and won three out of the four seats it contested. One of its promises was to oppose the Emergency Regulations. Six months after that, the former leader of the Government, one David Saul Marshall, tried a sleight of hand in this Assembly. As he brought in the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance with his right, he gallantly struck out the Emergency Regulations with his left. We opposed it then, and there is nothing that has happened since September 1955 to have changed our position from what it was in September 1955.

Let me explain, Sir. We were elected on an election promise to oppose, and we honour our promises. This is fundamental to the democratic system; that important issues are placed before the electorate by those contesting for power. Whoever is returned to represent the people has a mandate to do what he promised to do. This is the essence of the democratic system, otherwise it ceases to have a meaning. If you have people periodically and systematically presenting one point of view at election time, and, having been elected, they then proceed to do the opposite, then the whole democratic machinery is negated. If there is to be a departure from any fundamental pledge given in an election, then that mandate must be returned and a new mandate sought.

Sir, the Labour Front wants to know why the people think that it is anti a lot of things including anti-democracy, civilisation, Chinese, Asian, and why it is going down the drain. I say, six months from the time they won the election, they began to die because they, through the then Chief Minister, had perpetrated one of the biggest election frauds in Malayan history. They made the Emergency Regulations and its abolition a crucial issue. Six months after that, they thought that by changing names they could get away with it. What the present Chief Minister said this morning would have carried more conviction and more weight if he had the mandate to do and say all the things he has done and said, but deep down in his heart he knows that he had been a party to an electoral confidence trick.

Sir, it is true that we are not required by law, once having been elected, to abide by what we promised when we were elected. By law he who wins an election is a member for the term of his years of office, and he can with impunity do whatever he likes during his term of office. But the law does require that his office should come to an end and, if he chooses to go on, then he must seek a new mandate. When that time comes those who have forgotten what they promised the last time will discover that the people place very little reliance on what they promise this time.

Sir, the secret of long life in politics is not the continual formation, dissolution and reformation of political parties, fronts or movements. It is only the dissolute and the debauched who become prematurely aged, and who have to go in search of that elixir of life to give them back their lost youth and their lost vigour. So it is that some people believe that, having debauched themselves in one political party or front, they can, like the phoenix, arise from the ashes of the old in the feathers of a new party, front or movement as fresh as if nothing had happened. In fact, Sir, there is no such magic formula for longevity in political life other than the simple and the obvious: just honour your promises; do not corrupt and debauch your party. I am confident that he who does that will find that the people are as ready to believe what he says the next time, as what he said the last time. When you go back to renew your mandate, having faithfully executed the last one, you will find that there is reliance on what you are now saying.

Therefore, Sir, quite simply, the People's Action Party has no mandate to vote for the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. But, there may be people - I am quite sure that there may be some in important positions not only in Singapore but across the Causeway - who may want to know what the People's Action Party propose to do in the next elections. Is it going to repeat the same anti-Emergency Regulations stand? Is it going to make this an election issue, and then having won the elections seek to abolish the Emergency Regulations and precipitate a crisis? Under normal conditions, Sir, I would tell such nosey and curious people to wait for the proper time in the next few months when we shall be issuing our election manifesto. But it may be that the Federation of Malaya would like to know its position vis a vis Singapore after the next general elections, because the Federation of Malaya has to be represented on our Internal Security Council under the new Constitution. In fact, it is to have the decisive vote. What is to happen to these Emergency laws is a matter of some considerable importance to them, because there are now two political situations; one in the Federation and one in Singapore, both distinct and separate and self-contained, with a cordon sanitaire in the Straits of Johore. And they would like to know whether there is going to be a crisis immediately after the general elections, with an emergency meeting of the Internal Security Council summoned by the British to oppose any intended moves to abolish the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. In such a situation, the Federation may find themselves in the embarrassing position of (1) voting with the British against the Singapore representatives; or (2) voting with the Singapore representatives to abolish the Emergency laws which they in the Federation still consider necessary.

It is because this is a fundamental issue that I have a mandate from my Party to state now our future position. If it were the British Government in control of the Federation of Malaya, as it was three years ago, we would still oppose the Emergency laws as vehemently as we did three years ago, because then the Emergency law could be used and were sometimes used, not only to curb the Communists, but also to curb the militant Nationalists. It was a simple issue then of the people versus British imperialism, and we stated unequivocally where we stood.

Sir, when we were asked to vote for these laws three years ago, we opposed them, for the centre of the Government in the Federation was the High Commissioner and his nominated officials, and in Singapore it was then, and now is still, in the triumvirate of the three official Ministers headed by the Governor with over-riding powers. These are men who are not answerable to the people. Their masters are not in Singapore but in London. In that situation, we allied ourselves with all the anti-colonial forces to fight colonialism and we will continue to do so until the last vestiges of colonial rule are removed.

But now, however, partly as a result of scheming by the British Raj and partly because of the accidents of history, we are faced with a separate and independent Federation of Malaya with no prospects in the immediate future of our becoming independent. Next year, we are to be only internally self-governing, and in all security matters which effect defence upon which the Singapore and the British Governments disagree, the Federation Government is to be the arbiter. We accepted that position because we accepted merger as the only way to independence. If we are prepared to accept the Federation and join it as a member state, then it means that we are prepared to allow the Government representing the 11 States in the Federation to have a decisive voice in the affairs of Singapore.

That is still our position and it will be our position for all the years to come until merger. This is the basic analysis of our political situation. If that analysis is correct, then certain logical consequences follow. We must recognise that our over-riding objective is merger and that means that we must acknowledge that until merger the over-riding interests of the Federation must prevail over Singapore. Therefore, we say that if we are the Government of Singapore, we will take no steps which will undermine the interests of the Federation.

As a Party of the "Left", we may not always agree or see eye to eye with a Party of the "Right", as the Tunku has once called the United Malay Nationalist Organisation. But we can assure them that their views and susceptibilities will be given the most careful consideration by us. We state our stand now on the question of the Emergency laws, and it is this: that as long as they are necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Federation, so long will they be necessary for Singapore. Sir, we state this now in the full knowledge and anticipation that there will be political bankrupts and charlatans, those who have, and those who have not ever graced the chairs of this Assembly, who will make promises to abolish them in the next elections. We have met such types before, and we expect to meet them in the next elections. When that time comes, we shall justify our view and our stand, that there will be no abolition of the Emergency laws in Singapore until they have been abolished in the Federation. Those who want the Emergency laws abolished in Singapore should try to help to establish conditions of peace and security in the Federation so that they may no longer be required there.

Any Government or any person that seeks in the next elections to say that they will abolish these powers will be faced with three positions if they proceed with and honour their promise. Three things can happen - (1) either the Federation Government votes with the British against the Singapore representatives, it having been thoroughly antagonized already at that stage and then the Government fails with consequent antagonism and hostility between the British and us, which is unimportant, but also between the Federation and us which is important; or (2) the unlikely event of the Federation representative saying that he will vote with the Singapore representatives and abolish it for Singapore and allow Singapore, if necessary, to be a rest camp and a base for Malayan Communist Party activities in the Federation; or (3) he may abstain and a deadlock is created. I am not sure which of the two probabilities is the more probable; their voting with the British against the Singapore representatives, or their abstaining and creating .a political deadlock which may end up with the suspension of the Constitution. But he who makes these promises must be prepared to face his way out of that dilemma. Before these laws have been abolished in the Federation, any man who believes that he can abolish them in Singapore needs to have a psychiatric examination. Before these conditions have been brought about, however, let all intelligent persons, including those who have been called intelligent persons by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for they knowing this full well proceed to promise these things in the elections, let them remember that cheats and liars are very easily exposed and when they do, humiliation follows with a vengeance.

Sir, I was thrilled to hear the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng), and went into rapturous ecstasies when I heard the Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous) who, because he had more cars on election day, defeated his opponent, my comrade Mr Devan Nair, and he still is my comrade -

Mr A. R. Lazarous: Still?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Let there be no doubts on that matter. Those who ordinarily believe that they can out-P.A.P. the P.A.P. will find that they are over the abyss where all good Communists or bad democrats are. Sir, we are the extreme left of the democratic front, the genuine extreme left. Those who want to out-left us are either genuine Communists or bogus democrats, and many a leader has tried at some time or the other to out-maneuver the P.A.P. The former Chief Minister to this very day finds it difficult to think of my name without a certain degree of hostility and a certain desire for vengeance. I once advised him when he was in London for the Constitutional Talks, that before making rash promises about resigning and quitting politics, he should consider the consequences of his action, if he tried to be more militant and vigorous than the P.A.P. He discovered subsequently that he had overplayed his hand. He tried again in the City Council Election, and looked as if he was recovering his hand, and he made the biggest bid of all in the Kallang by-elections, and he lost.

Sir, we are unmoved by temporary successes or defeats. We are the products of a movement, a movement which began with the Japanese occupation of Malaya, and which released all those forces of pride and self-respect in the subject peoples of Asia and made them determined never again to allow themselves to be dominated by foreign powers. Nobody plied me with tracts, Sir, to become a politician. Nobody taught me Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin. We were created by ambitions, not by special agents, and I believe that if we are able to face the future with firmness and courage and with a determination to succeed, we shall succeed, for if we fail, then let me tell the Member for Farrer Park - I am quite sure he will be the first to flee.

Sir, all colonial territories that have gained their independence since the end of the Second World War have equipped themselves with Emergency Laws - India, Pakistan, Burma, even Ceylon, and now Ghana. Now, Sir, I do not suggest - I see no Members on the Front Bench there who can be as tough as Mr Udesi, the Minister for Home Affairs in Ghana, except perhaps the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) who looks quite tough! But I would say this, that having seen the historical evolution of these territories, we would be foolish to try and beguile ourselves with unsophisticated phrases of democracy and liberty and human rights and freedom, while we go down the drain. Our situation is neither new nor unique in the history of mankind, and I say quite frankly that we shall learn from what has happened in these other countries, and the P.A.P. Government will equip itself with Emergency powers.

But we also wish to say that the use of these Emergency powers depends upon the stand of the persons who are equipped with them, and we stand for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. Within this democratic system, everyone has the right to compete, to preach his political views, but the competition must be for the purpose of working the system, not of destroying it. These powers will not be allowed to be used against political opponents within the system who compete for the right to work the system. That is fundamental and basic, or the powers will have destroyed the purpose for which they were forged. If in using these powers you, in fact, negate the purpose for which you made them, then you will end up with a situation where force, and more force, will become increasingly necessary.

I would like to remind the Chief Minister, since he has recited all the good deeds he has done, including rescuing - one of the popular beliefs in town is that the Labour Front rescued the P.A.P. Sir, I think they should credit us with a little more intelligence and political skill than is commonly believed possible in so-called extremists. In the first place, let me get the arithmetic right. The moderate factor so-called, we have never called ourselves moderates because we like to be honest - we are not moderates and therefore we do not pretend to be - and those who thought we were moderates were quite alarmed when we won the City Council elections and they discovered that we were not moderates, but we are non-Communists and we have said so. In the first place, we did not lose control of the Party to those who wanted to capture the Party - and I will not say whether they are Communists or not since the Chief Minister is so well informed but would not disclose his sources we fought to a draw, that is the first point to remember, six-all, and we knew, what was more, that the other side had a weak link because it was really five/six - and we knew full well it would in a crisis crack up, and crises there were galore. Sir, if the Chief Minister believed that he rescued the P.A.P., then naturally he must comfort himself with the thought that perhaps the P.A.P. would be grateful to him for having tried, not having rescued the P.A.P., to drown the chaps whom he fished out of the water. We have no gratitude to him for trying to do that, and we tell him quite plainly and bluntly that if he wants to make political capital out of this we will give him more than he can give us.

But there are three things in the catalogue of events and good deeds that he has done on behalf of the people without having informed them first that he wanted to do all these things. But he did not listen and I am making these, I would not say charges, but I am making these statements in the full knowledge that everybody outside shares these suspicions - that he has been playing the fool with human lives and liberties. How else can he explain why he arrested Dr Chuang Chu Lin, held him for many months as a dangerous tool who has been used by the Communists, and then, without a word of explanation, released him in order that he could gratefully shake the hands of the Chief Minister? Why did he arrest and detain Linda Chen for two years and tell the world that she was a dangerous Communist, and then without so much as an expression of regret, release her as the others were being banished to China?

Why did he give Mr Lim Kean Chye an entry permit and then have him arrested when he arrived? Did he not know that there would be retaliation and consequences in the Federation? Here was a man who had been trying for years to get back into the Federation as of right, as a Federal citizen, and the Federation Government have refused him because they said that under the Constitution he had been away for more than five years; and knowing full well these things, he gave him an entry permit, got the man clapped in gaol, succeeded in antagonizing the Federation to a point where they immediately promulgated a new set of laws to control movements across the causeway. Before anybody with a right of entry into Singapore had a right of entry into the Federation. Now the position has altered not only to the detriment of this one person, but to the detriment of the people of Singapore generally, because the Chief Minister or his Government chose to act in such an arbitrary and desperate fashion. Sheer recklessness. I say this - no Government has the right to play politics with the lives and liberties of people, be they its citizens or no. And I say this now for the benefit of all, that the P.A.P. Government will not allow these powers to be used in this reckless fashion.

Let this also be made known, that our definition of the word "subversion" is probably different from the British definition of that term, and maybe even from the Labour Front definition of that term - "subversion". In our definition "subversion" is any political activity designed to further the aims and interests not of our own people but of foreign powers; and by foreign powers we mean not just Russia and China, but also America and Formosa, and the Western bloc.

Let those who are interested to know where we stand draw a lesson from the fate of David Saul Marshall and the Labour Front. Let them take it to heart, for that is the way how not to win elections. We in the People's Action Party would prefer to lose an election rather than win it on false premises and promises. We have grown from strength to strength, because we are honest and because what we say publicly we honour publicly. We stated three years ago in the then situation that we were against the Emergency Regulations. We opposed it after we were elected in 1955 and in September and October. We will oppose it now because we are on the same mandate. But to those who would like to know what we will do in a few months' time, as they have every right to know, we say now that if we do not begin to face up to the future, then we perish.

Let me say this, that we in this Assembly must always expect to have those who are denied direct entry into the political arena, we must expect them to fight by proxy. If it were not David Saul Marshall, it could be the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng), it could be anybody else. I hold nothing against them, but I would like them to remember this: Fight your own battle for your own end, and I state the P.A.P. battle is for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. We are not going to join in this mad crusade of liberating the unfree world for the free world, of wanting Formosa to recapture the mainland of China. At the same time we state quite categorically that we believe in the democratic system, that we will allow full competition within the democratic system, but competition for the purpose of destroying the democratic system will be resisted; and a Government or any group of persons who come and tell the people that they intend to curb themselves in the name of democracy, human liberty and freedom, would be the first to flee for their lives when they find the policies which they have advocated come home to roost. The People's Action Party is under no illusions as to the position in Malaya. We know the position in Singapore vis-a-vis the Federation of Malaya. In the next elections we will make our stand clear and justify it against all crackpots, charlatans, political opportunists and adventurers.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and the manner in which he has presented his case, by changing the stand which his Party took when this Ordinance was first before this House three years ago, when he and his Party and the absent Member violently attacked the proposed Bill. He has now given us two very ingenious reasons why his Party has changed its policy towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The first reason is that it is because of the whiphand of the Federation by their having the Chairman in the Council for the internal security of Singapore, and so long as he is there, whatever happened in the Federation to make emergency regulations necessary there will make them necessary in Singapore. The other reason he has given us is that his Party must follow the examples set before us by the colonies which have just gained independence and which all have such emergency regulations. But with all those justifications one point stands out clearly, and that is that his Party now supports the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and it has made our task much easier.

Sir, he has attacked the Government Party for not following the Party platform during the elections and I must say that we are the only realistic Party and we have never changed from our point of view of public security. I refer to my -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Always colonial stooges!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: That, Sir, is not true. We were the first to voice independence here and we are on the way towards it. Sir, I read from the Report of the Legislative Assembly sitting on the 21st of September, 1955 -

"Mr Speaker, Sir, our Party, the Progressive Party, has always been realistic in our policy with regard to the Emergency Regulations."

I will miss some irrelevant portions and I go on -

"We are not going to deviate from the course we have set ourselves and have taken so far. We have supported and will continue to support the continuance of these Regulations or other similar laws so long as there is violence, terror and fear in Malaya. But we must also remember that, as we have infringed upon the rights of individuals, we must see to it that no injustice is perpetrated as a result of these Regulations."

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member give the columns, please?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: It is at column 745.

Mr Speaker: Column 745, thank you.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I can almost say that these were prophetic words! What we saw clearly in those days has happened in the course of the last three years and, to my mind, has made the continuance of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for another year a necessity. We in this Chamber must examine with full conscience and review what has happened during these very exciting three years.

The Hon. the Chief Minister has already in his speech supporting the motion given details of the necessity of putting down riots and detaining those persons who have been responsible for the riots. Now these persons, under this Ordinance, have a right to ask for their cases to be reviewed by three judges. To my knowledge, all of them have applied for their cases to be reviewed and they have been turned down. Sir, if we were going to question the decision of the three judges who exercise the powers under this Ordinance and who have decided that there is sufficient evidence to detain these people, then it would be a very sorry day indeed for us, Sir, for we are then challenging administration of the justice in our country and throwing doubt whether the judges who are sitting in the Courts today have been correct in their decisions to throw out these applications for review. Sir, since the detentions were made and confirmed by the decision of these three judges, we have some measure of peace and order among us in which we can work quietly for our next step in the government of Singapore towards self-government.

Under these circumstances, Sir, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this motion to extend this Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for another year.

11.25 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar who has fulfilled my dream that one day the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar must admit that he is of the right-wing party when compared to the Communists.

Sir, I am not going into the merits or demerits of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Today it seems that storytellers are very popular in this country and I, therefore, would like to recollect the story of what happened three years ago: 27th September, 1955. The hon. Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) shouted, "This Bill is a colonial Security Bill". The hon. Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim) said that this Bill would deter the trade union movement. The hon. Member for Serangoon said, "I prefer the Emergency Regulations because the length of time for its review is only three months". Sir, things have greatly changed now, especially the People's Action Party, and particularly the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. He appears to us as a very responsible and an entirely changed man, changed to such an extent that he made a statement contradictory to what he had said before, in the Hansard Volume 1 No. 14 col. 726 in which he said "If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it?" In other words, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said this P.P.S.O. is a Fascist law! Now he seems to realise his responsibility to the people and take it to heart and, therefore, he has promised us to change his stand. But one thing which he is not aware of is that times have changed. No more 200 strikes - over 200 strikes during so short a period - no more picketeers outside this House; no more Emergency appeals now except gangster activities. The general election is coming nearer and nearer. If the Government insist on amending this law by extending it for another year, I am sure they will mislead the people into believing that this Bill is really helping the People's Action Party.

Since the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has confirmed that Mr Devan Nair is still his colleague and comrade and that the hon. Member for Bukit Timah is his comrade too, why do the Government not release them by withdrawing this amending Bill? Let Mr Devan Nair and the Member for Bukit Timah take part in this coming general election. This will serve to confirm or deny the political gossip or rumour that there is really an understanding between the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar to arrest all his opponents in the P.A.P.

But the most important thing is the concept of democracy. I do not mind using the same words as have been used by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I quote from Hansard No. 14, Volume 1, dated 21st September, 1955, col. 726:

"If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself, My plea - to quote from someone in another context - is that the time has come in Malaya for an agonising reappraisal of strategy and strength. To go on blindly in the hope that somehow or the other suppression can prevent latent social, economic and political discontents from manifesting themselves and disrupting the structure of society is a piece of folly to which my Party does not subscribe."

Sir, it is very clear. If we want a free democratic election and if we have confidence in ourselves that the democratic system is much better than the totalitarian system, it seems therefore rather absurd to bar people who do not believe this Bill is in their interests; but they merely say it is aimed to bar them from contesting the elections.

Moreover, the Emergency conditions in the Federation have greatly improved. Many black areas have now turned into white areas and I think the stability of the Federation of Malaya is obvious. Therefore I do not think it is wise for this House at this moment, in view of the approaching general election, to amend this Bill from three to four years. It will indirectly prove that we are cowards and that we have an inferiority complex in that we do not dare to fight a system in which we do not believe. Therefore, Sir, I appeal to the Government to consider this point, it seems we cannot fight the King Kong therefore we put him into the jail, I do not think this is a bold and courageous government.

11.36 a.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, next year a new Assembly will be elected and a new government will be formed by the majority party in the Assembly. The new government will operate the new constitution. What should be the attitude of the government towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance? My colleague, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, has made a general review of the stand which my Party will take should it he returned at the next General Elections.

I wish to elaborate on the subject in one of its aspects. I want to discuss the future relationship between the self-governing government of the State of Singapore and the independent state of the Federation of Malaya. It is obvious that the matter of internal security is one of paramount importance in the ties between Singapore and the Federation.

It seems a safe enough starting point to assume that the over-riding policy of any future government must be to secure agreement with the Federation government for a merger of the two territories. Under the new constitution Singapore will enjoy only internal self-government. For full Merdeka we must merge with the mainland. Only lunatics believe that Singapore can be an independent state on its own.

Given that with the next step of our political development, we would have reached only the half-way house to full Merdeka, it is important that we should then onwards press ahead and avoid doing anything that would harm us in the last stage of our journey to freedom.

It should be clear even to the meanest intellect that we must fall in line with the Federation Government on matters of internal security. Let us examine both the constitutional and political position.

The constitutional position is clear. The supreme authority in matters of internal security is the Security Council. On the Security Council will sit three Singapore representatives, three British representatives and one Federation representative. This means that where Singapore and the Federation are united, they can out-vote the British; where they are disunited, the British will have the deciding voice.

This is the Security arrangement agreed to by the Singapore All Party Mission. This is part of the new constitution. The All Party stand on this matter, and on all matters generally, has been put to the test of public opinion in last year's Tanjong Pagar by-election. It received overwhelming public support.

We in Singapore are pleased that the Federation Government have agreed to appoint one representative on the Security Council. This is surely a welcome recognition that internal security is a problem common to both territories, as, indeed, all other important problems are common to both territories.

Singapore's political situation is not complicated. This was not so two or three years ago in Singapore when democrats, pro-Communists, anti-Communists, pro-colonialists and others were contending in the political arena. All pretended to be democrats. The picture was then confused. When four or five armies join in the fray, it is not always easy in the din or battle and in the melee of banners and uniforms, to find out who represents what. But now, as we approach Merdeka, the issues are defining themselves and the genuine democrat stands out from the imposter masquerading in his uniform.

In the Federation there is armed conflict between Tunku Abdul Rahman's government and the Malayan Communist Party. Quite naturally the Federation Government is anxious that a self-governing Singapore will not provide a refuge and a sanctuary for the M.C.P.'s hard pressed battalions. It is possible that the Federation Government have exaggerated the possibility of our island being used as a refitting centre by the M.C.P. but the anxiety they felt was a real one and no doubt lay behind their willingness to participate in Singapore's security affairs.

So long as the Federation have the Emergency on their hands, that long will they insist that no Singapore government shall be permitted to give aid and comfort to the Communists and their sympathisers. If an elected Singapore government were to attempt otherwise, two consequences immediately follow. First, there will be a serious division of opinion within the Security Council between Singapore and the Federation. As I explained earlier, any disunity between the two will give the British representatives the deciding voice. No one need doubt as to how the British will vote. The Federation view will prevail. The second consequence will be that Singapore may well have to forget about merger with the Federation, at least until it changes by free election the government which has brought it into conflict with the Federation's vital security interests.

Nobody likes the provisions of the Preservation of the Public Security Ordinance. But it is foolish to imagine that a self-governing Singapore will ever be able to discard the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and at the same time hope to merge with the Federation. You can do one or the other; you cannot do both. I am quite clear in my mind what I would do given the choice in a self-governing Singapore. Good government does not depend on the absence of these powers. It depends upon their proper use by a government answerable to the people.

Today, however, the self-governing Singapore is yet to be and for this reason and for other reasons as explained by my colleague, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I shall cast my vote against the motion.

11.45 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the debate so far two things have, to my mind, emerged. Firstly, we see how politicians lack understanding. They choose to be blind to the happenings or incidents that are occurring around us every day and therefore they choose to say things they do not really mean with an eye to the future elections. Secondly, the P.A.P are, I think, not courageous enough to say that their conscience and the facts and evidence in their possession warrant their full support of the present Bill before the House. But through their Secretary-General, the P.A.P. choose to put the blame on the existence of the Emergency powers in the Federation. They choose to put the blame on the Communist terrorists fighting the Federation Government, and be., cause of the existence of that terrorism in the Federation of Malaya, we must therefore, with a view to a future merger, support this Bill. I would be happier if the P.A.P. would come before us and say that, because of the existence of the Communists and their elements who are trying to overthrow constitutional government, such a law is necessary in Singapore, without reference to the future merger with the Federation or because of the existence of a certain situation in the Federation of Malaya.

11.47 a.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party's attitude towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance has always depended on the answers to two questions.

The first question is: To whom are these extraordinary powers being given? The second is: To what use will these powers be put?

The two questions, in fact, are interrelated. We can tell from the nature of the persons to whom these powers are given, how they will use these extraordinary powers.

For example, Sir, a government of Fascists will use the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to strengthen and safeguard their way of life. And in pre-war Germany and pre-war Italy, Fascist governments had special powers and used them to strengthen their kind of state.

Similarly, Communist governments will use these extraordinary powers to protect and consolidate the Communist state. In Russia, China and other People's Democracies, governments have arbitrary powers of arrest, detention and even of execution.

Sir, I have no doubt that if we had a government of secret society gangsters or their underlings, such a government would use the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to make Singapore safe for gangsterism.

My Party has, in the past, attacked the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, or the Emergency Regulations as it used to be called, because we know to whom these powers were being given and to what use they would be put.

The Emergency Regulations, as you know, Sir, were first promulgated by a colonial regime. It is true that the supporters of this regime claimed that the Emergency Regulations would be used to preserve democracy against armed Communist revolt and subversion.

Now it may be that the colonial forces genuinely believed that the interests of colonialism and democracy were identical. They were only a little less virulent in their attacks on the anti-colonial parties than they were in their attacks on the Communists.

So long as a colonial regime and its journalistic tools were unable to distinguish between democracy and nationalism, it would have been folly to have agreed to extraordinary powers to such a regime.

Well, Sir, the times have changed. Next year Singapore is to have internal self-government. This is not full independence or Merdeka. But this is not due to obstruction on the part of the British or to restraint on the part of Singapore's political parties. Singapore, by itself, cannot be an independent state, though there are bankrupt and desperate politicians who hope to revive their political fortunes by pretending that it can.

Independence for Singapore depends on it becoming a part of the Federation. My Party's attitude towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is partly determined by this aspiration. As long as an independent Federation is at war with the M.C.P., a self-governing Singapore cannot act as though an emergency situation does not exist.

It is not a case of defending democracy only in the Federation. It must be safeguarded in Singapore too. Once Singapore becomes a self-governing democracy, that democracy must be defended by extraordinary powers, if necessary. In fact, we think, Sir, that in the circumstances now existing in Malaya such powers are necessary. But they should be in the hands of a democratically elected government - a government answerable to the people.

In fact, it will be hard for a small territory like Singapore to escape subversion once it becomes self-governing. And by subversion we mean activity by any group to destroy the democratic system. And we do not care whether such subversion comes from the right or from the Communists. Any attempt by any group to make Singapore subservient to any country other than itself or the Federation must be resisted by extraordinary powers if need be. There is only one way of over-throwing a government in a democracy, and that is by its citizens voting it out of power.

The P.A.P. therefore agree that extraordinary powers are necessary to preserve democracy, provided they are in the hands of a government freely elected by the people.

An hon. Member: The P.A.P.?

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Certainly, or any other government. Only such a government can be trusted to use the powers to strengthen and safeguard democracy.

But that is not the position today. It is not a fully elected Government that will be exercising these powers and the basic situation is unchanged from what it was three years ago when we voted against this Bill. And so vote against we still will.

11.56 a.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we seem to live in a topsyturvy world! Three Independent Members now appear to oppose this Bill which previously they supported. Perhaps by this means they hope to achieve the preservation of the security of their own political future.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar points out that the Government is breaking its promises and indulges in an elaborate argument as to why the P.A.P. is doing precisely the same thing. For our part, we still regret that our amendment of three years ago was not accepted, namely, that the Bill should come up for review once a year instead of after three years. It would have been interesting to see the Member for Tanjong Pagar exhibiting his casuistry as an annual event. Sir, we propose to be consistent and to support this Bill and all that it implies.

11.58 a.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very deeply surprised that the Labour Front Coalition Government have had to ask this House for an extension of one year for the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. After going through the speech made by the Chief Minister - he was the Minister for Labour and Welfare then - can I have your permission, Sir, to refer to what he said in the Hansard, Vol. 1, No. 14 dated 21st September, 1955, col. 748? The Chief Minister said that on that day he was one of the Members who sat on the Labour Front Four-Year Programme and that it was he who was most insistent in wanting the Emergency Regulations repealed because it was felt, at the time when they were considering the question of the Preservation of Public Security Bill, that the situation in Singapore did not warrant a continuance of these unnecessary and repressive laws. And he went on to say, Sir,

"When we were returned to power, I was still of the mind that we should have the Emergency Regulations repealed, but in May."

just one month after they were returned to power, Sir, his friends the P.A.P. -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is quoting, I suggest he read the actual words he is quoting.

Mr William Tan: I thank you for your guidance, Sir, I will go through the sentence.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will, perhaps from the very beginning?

Mr William Tan: Yes.

"I was still of the mind that we should have the Emergency Regulations repealed, but in May, just one month after we were returned to power, Sir, our friends over there, not all may be, but our friends over there, with their friends in the Bus Workers' Union and in other unions, were responsible for the riots of May 12th and responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people." Sir, after reading that speech, I feel that this extension of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is not necessary. More than three years have passed since he made that speech, and I personally feel that the present situation does not justify the extension of the Ordinance for another year. The Labour Front want this extension. For what? For a display of their powers, that they can arrest people and imprison or detain them without trial. Sir, I still remember distinctly that the Chief Minister himself went to the Outram Road Prison and released the students and workers. I refer to the New Year and Hari Raya Puasa when the detainees were released. They were allowed to have three days' freedom to visit their families. If they are dangerous people charged with subversive activities, I cannot understand why we must grant them this short spell of freedom. To allow them three days' freedom simply shows that these people are not as dangerous as the Government picture them. They are being imprisoned at the whims and fancies of the Labour Front Coalition Government.

I also refer to the detention of the Principal of Chung Cheng School. What crime has he committed? There are so many others who were detained. Sir, if these people were to be punished or deported, it should be done by due process of law and in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice, and they should not be detained and then released at the pleasure of Government. If they are really Communists, detain them. Why allow them this freedom of three days to visit their families? If they are really bad people, in three hours they can do a lot of damage.

I personally feel, Sir, that these arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial of people who have the courage to criticise the Government bring to mind the methods used in the Communist countries to eliminate their enemies. The children and dependants of these poor people who have been detained, through no fault of their own, have suffered intolerable hardship, anxieties and cruelties. Have the Government pondered for one little moment what anxieties they have caused them? I feel that this Bill, or this weapon of arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial, in the hands of the Government is, if misused, against the principle of freedom-freedom of speech, freedom of association and expression - because this Bill seeks to curtail individual freedom. To give this power again to a tottering Government is one action in which I will have no part.

We went to London to talk about Merdeka. We want to be free from the shackles of colonialism and we want to have a free and democratic way of life. Is this another thing to be introduced here? I can assure you that I am dead against the Communists and against the action of the Chief Minister in giving them a three days' holiday. But to treat innocent people like that and go to the prison to show them to the parents is to display his own powers. I will object to that, because I feel that these people have been arrested on trumped-up charges and have been imprisoned without trial. Probably they have been tortured, as the Member for Queenstown has said, or beaten up. This sort of thing really reminds me of the methods of the Communists. All men are created equal and by this Bill the Government is using the power to eliminate their enemies. I therefore oppose the extension of this Bill for another year.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Unless any other hon. Member wishes to speak? Mr Chief Minister.

12.06 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we grow older and older and as the Members of this Assembly become more and more learned in their ways of representing the people of Singapore, we find irresponsible people becoming more and more responsible, and then we have the sad spectacle of responsible people becoming more and more irresponsible as the time draws near to the general elections. We find Members who belonged to a Party resigning and walking over to the other side, the Opposition Benches. We find Members of one political Party speaking at variance with the policy of the Party. We also find Members of one Party who are proud to claim that they are left, and anyone who is more left than they must be either Communists or mad democrats. It now behooves me to reply to all the charges which have been made by irresponsible people who put up a pretence of being responsible, and by responsible people who have now become irresponsible.

First of all, I think I should reply to the charges of the last speaker, the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru. He says that the Government use its arbitrary powers to arrest its political opponents. Yet I think in my opening speech I gave an account of the arrests and of the connections the detainees had with the People's Action Party. The Party that was most concerned did not stand up and say that the arrests and the detentions were wrong. Yet out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru he now says that the Government has done this thing in order to silence political opponents. Surely he must have realised by now that if this Government had not been firm, if my colleagues had not dared to sacrifice their own security and run the risk of being assassinated, he would not have been able to sit here and enjoy the freedom that we are at present enjoying because of the actions of the Government.

Then he asks, "Why did I allow these detainees to go home and visit their parents, their wives and their children?" Surely, Sir, I am very human, if the hon. Member is not. When the families came to see me, when they cried. I really cried with them. When they were sorrowful, I too was sorrowful. When they said that their husbands were taken away, I looked at my wife and thought, "If her husband were taken away, how would she feel?" When they said that the children were denied the loving care of their fathers who were detained by the Government, I looked at my children and said, "Although your father is not detained, yet you do not see your father because of the work that he has to do for the public." Yet because I showed some human understanding by allowing detainees to rejoin their parents for three days during Chinese New Year - that is the custom - I am now accused by the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru of playing with politics, playing with the freedom of the people who have been detained, and he charged that they were my political opponents.

Sir, whatever the Government does - if we detain them, we are accused of taking action against political opponents; if we release them even for a few days to rejoin their families, we are accused of running the risk of allowing these subversive elements to go back into circulation and contaminating the people of Singapore.

Now we come to the three members of the People's Action Party. The fourth member who is still in Changi Prison has not been named by them. It is indeed most significant; whereas the Independent Members named them as their honourable comrade and colleague. Indeed it is very wonderful, Sir.

What have the members of the People's Action Party been saying? This law is all right, if we operate it. This law is not all right, because the other side is operating it. We will support any such law because the situation in the Federation demands it, but we cannot support it now because it is still a semi-colonial administration that is running it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is true.

The Chief Minister: It is just saying to their comrades, "My comrades, today I must resist, because I have an excuse to resist the three colonial officials here; but tomorrow we want to merge with the Federation, so I therefore cannot resist. So you must please understand my reasons. Let us still continue to be friends." That is not the way to carry on. One must have the courage of one's convictions and say whether it is right or it is wrong at any particular time. Why should it be wrong now but right tomorrow? They are really going to vote against this, so they said, but their leader has not said it. Their leader has said so many things that he has even confused the hon. Member for Paya Lebar who has complimented him on his change of stand. Then the hon. Member for Sembawang stood up and said, "We oppose the Bill." There you are! The English language is so difficult to understand. If one knows how to twist it about, one keeps the other side confused. Now they say they are going to oppose it. Yet they say, if they are going to come into power ultimately - well, it is but right they come in if the public do vote them in - they are prepared to use what we have introduced and, now seek to extend for one year; they are prepared to use what they do not want us to use. What strange reasoning!

They say that I seek to claim credit for having saved them from being choked by the Communists. I did not say so. All I said was that out of so many people arrested, there were so many connected with the People's Action Party. There were so many confessions from people who said that they were instructed to penetrate into the P.A.P. and use it for Communist ends. What do I want to claim credit for, from the Party that is on the other side? I claim no credit for it, nor do I claim credit from the people of Singapore for having done my duty. It is my duty and I will do it irrespective of whether the hon. Members of the P.A.P. say whether we did right or we did wrong. They claim that we played an election trick on the public, and the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru read out my speech which I made three years ago. It is true, Sir, when we contested the general elections in 1955 we said that we must remove all repressive laws. But when we got into power and found that the situation was so bad as to demand the remedy of preventive detention, we were not afraid; we are not moral cowards; we went straight ahead and did our duty. We did it and we are proud that we have done it. It is because of what we have done that Singapore is what it is today. The hon. Members of the P.A.P. would not have been here to crow about their success if action had not been taken against those that sought to choke them and to capture the P.A.P. for their own ends.

And now they accuse me again of why I released Dr Chuang Chu Lin, why Linda Chen was released; why Mr Lim Kean Chye was allowed to come back and yet detained by the police. I must be an evil man for doing all this, thoroughly evil, so I must be the target not only of the Communists but also a target of the so-called freedom-loving democrats that are now in the P.A.P. Sir, when the ship was ready to take away the banishees, we went through every banishee's case to see whether or not we could show leniency and whether or not the security of Singapore would be jeopardised by the release of any banishees, because we are human and we can appreciate and understand the sufferings of these people. We are now accused of having released Dr Chuang whose release we now believe is no longer prejudicial to the security of Singapore. The same case applied to Linda Chen. As regards Lim Kean Chye, I am indeed surprised, Sir, that this should have come from a very learned member of the Bar. Under the Immigration Ordinance, any British subject born in Malaya cannot be denied entry and to that extent Mr Lim Kean Chye could not be denied entry, not that he was given an entry permit to enter Singapore. But his sponsor had been advised by me unofficially that because Lim Kean Chye escaped at the time when a warrant of arrest was issued against him, there was every possibility that if he came back to Singapore, he would be detained. I told that to the sponsor. And yet the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar would like to twist it round and round and say, how steady the P.A.P. are and how weak-kneed the Labour Front is. He says that by doing all these things the Labour Front is committing political suicide. Sir, to him the Party stands first. To me and my colleagues the country stands first, be it the suicide of the Labour Front or not. The security of the country, including the security of those that sit on the other side, comes first in our work. If we have to do drastic and unpopular things in order to look after the security of the citizens of Singapore, we will do it.

The hon. Member for Farrer Park claimed the people in jail as his comrades and when they were released, this side would be in jail. He thought this is a sort of game - "When I am out, he is in. When he is out, I am in." But I can assure him, Sir, that nothing is going to deter me from doing my duty. I have received a number of death threats and I have even been threatened face to face. Yet I say, "To hell with you!" I am sorry, Sir. "Out you go!" Lim Yew Hock is nobody. But Singapore counts, and it is indeed a pleasure to lay down one's life in the service of one's country.

I am afraid, Sir, that some hon. Members do not understand why the Bill is an amending Bill. We have to use this method of achieving the extension of one year. If we do not get this extension, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance lapses this month and I am sure the hon. Members who will be wanting to vote against the Bill would then be pleased to see all those comrades of theirs, now claimed to be theirs, released.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Colleagues, not comrades, Sir.

The Chief Minister: Sir, we fix it for one year because we fully realise that every time the Opposition, particularly some sections of the Opposition, would like the Government to bear the brunt of it. We went on exercising the powers under the P.P.S.O. and in their heart of hearts they say, "Well done, well done, well done! Thank God!" But then they come and say, "You, the Government of Singapore, you the Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, you have done wrong. You have done things undemocratically!" We are used to it, Sir. We can take it. If they cannot, at least we can. We make it one year, Sir. Since the P.A.P. is so proud to claim that they will be the next government, all right. They will then have to set their minds on how much longer they can out-Communist the Communists; how much longer they can keep on bluffing the Communists for whose support they are still seeking.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr A. R. Lazarous: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 7; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 4. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid Bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Goh Chew Chua. Braga, A. J. Lazarous, A. R. Chew Swee Kee. Lee Choon Eng. David, E. B. Lee Kuan Yew. Ede, John. Seah Peng Chuan. Goh Tong Liang. Tan, William. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Abstentation. Lim Koon Teck. Nil. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mason, J. M. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Oon Khye Kiang. Absent. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Jumabhoy, R. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Cher Kheng. Thomas, Francis. Lim Ching Siong. Wong Foo Nam. Tan Siak Kew.

Bill accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [The Chief Minister].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.31 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.