BANISHMENT OF MALAYAN-BORN PERSONS TO CHINA

4.30 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, which reads:

That this Assembly views with grave concern and is profoundly disturbed by the action of the Government of Singapore in deporting to China the following persons, namely, Fong Siew Long, Wong Yih Ching, Chong Huan Teng, Lim Inn Ping, Neo Ho Lan, Tai Chew Seng and Bok Kai Weng, although the Government has full knowledge that these persons were born, bred and educated in Malaya, which term in law means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, thereby depriving the aforesaid natural-born persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or of the Federation of Malaya, and therefore this House deplores and strongly condemns the Government for its high-handed and arbitrary act of banishing these natural-born persons of Malaya to China against their will.

Sir, I move this motion not for the fun or for the purpose of a debate, because I know for certain that my motion will be thrown out. The maximum I may get is one or two supporters for this motion, which is always the case. I move this motion because of the request made by the near relatives of these persons concerned. They have written me a letter and I will now read it. It is addressed to me and it says:

"We, the nearest relatives of the above-named persons, shall be ever grateful to you if you could kindly bring the following matters to the notice of the people of Singapore through a debate in the Legislative Assembly House.

All the above named persons were born and educated in Malaya and had never left Malaya. They were banished to China in the most cruel way by the present Government.

Kindly do your best to place this matter and explain to the public the inhuman action on the part of the present Lim Yew Hock Government.

With best wishes,"

and signed by the near relatives. [Laughter.]

Well, it appears to be a laughing matter to Members of this House though the life of a person or the future of a person or persons is at stake. I cannot see how Members of this House could treat it so lightly, treat it as a laughing matter, when persons are deported from the country of their birth; I do not think it should be a laughing matter. From the contents of this letter, Sir, you can see that the request from the near relatives is to bring to light the inhuman and arbitrary action of the present Government in banishing those persons concerned to China, though they were born, bred and educated in Malaya. It appears, therefore, to me, Sir, that the Government has not the slightest regard for human rights. Government always has proudly proclaimed to the people that it stands for democracy and the freedom of the people. We have this morning heard so much about democracy. But what is democracy and where is democracy when it has time and again ignored the just demands and strong protests of the people of Singapore?

Sir, during the Second Reading of the Singapore Citizenship Bill, the Chief Minister said - I think I will have to quote what he said in col. 2541, Vol. 2, No. 36 of 11th September, 1957. This is what the Chief Minister said:

"We as elected Members of the Assembly owe our power to our representing the views of the people as expressed through the secrecy of the ballot box. As individuals, whatever our abilities or claims, we have no power other than the power which derives from the people."

So it is through the secret ballot box that we are here today. Sir, did the Chief Minister at the time when he said those words sincerely believe that he was practising democracy? If so, then it is regrettable to see that his Government has acted otherwise, by showing the lack of sincerity in the words of the Chief Minister himself. The arbitrary action of the Government clearly shows how desperate and short-sighted is the policy of Government. Sir, in the universal declaration of human rights, there is a quotation:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

Well, does this mean anything to the Chief Minister or his Government? It means nothing, from what I can see, otherwise how could he explain the high-handed and arbitrary action by deporting these persons to China against their will, though the Government knows full well that they were born, bred and educated in Malaya? These persons have never travelled beyond the shores of this place, and now they are deported to a foreign country.

As I say now, we always talk about democracy, but do we practise democracy? We do sometimes practise or talk of democracy to deceive the people, not otherwise. We also talk of subversives or subversion. Sir, what is subversion? To quote one instance where the subversives of today may be leaders of tomorrow. I will now quote "Who was Nkrumah at that time?" Was he not considered a subversive element by the colonial government at that time? Then who is he today? In 1955 he was quoted as a subversive element. He is now the Prime Minister of Ghana. Then we have Nehru, Sir. Again, who was he before? Again, a subversive element. Today he is the Prime Minister of a great Asian country. Sir, can we tolerate such subversive elements as opinionated by the Chief Minister? Sir, it would not be surprising that the subversive element we have in this Assembly, the hon. Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong), may one day be the Prime Minister or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore! Then where is the subversive element in that Member for Bukit Timah? You can never tell, and if the P.A.P. comes into power, he is released and contests the elections, there is a possibility that he may be the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore. [Interruption.]

Mr Lee Choon Eng: - or the Prime Minister, I am so sorry. But if he does not contest the elections, and if the P.A.P. do decide to release him, and because he has been deprived the opportunity of contesting the first general elections, the P.A.P. may consider making him - if he quits his own Party - the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. Looking at the motion, I cannot find the name of the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong). Neither can I find any reference to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Will the hon. Member please keep to the terms of his motion as closely as possible?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I was just explaining what "subversive" means, and that the day may come when these elements of today may become the leaders of tomorrow.

Sir, however serious their crime may be, banishment to a foreign country against their will of persons born and bred in Malaya - I will emphasize those words because it was not of their own free will that they were prepared to be deported to China, although I believe that the Chief Minister has, in his hands, a signed statement. The signatories may be forced to sign the statement that they are prepared to be deported. I am just saying - I am not sure - so it is up to the Chief Minister whether he has in his hands signed statements by such persons that they are prepared to be deported to China. In fact, it was against their own will. And if that was the case, the deporting of people against their own will is most cruel and a most barbaric form of punishment. This form of punishment, Sir, is unthinkable in these days, especially when the persons concerned are natural-born persons of Malaya. As stated in my motion, Sir, the interpretation of the law in section 2 of the Interpretation and 6eneral Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 2) says that Malaya means either the Federation of Malaya or Singapore; so it is just the same where Malaya or Singapore is concerned. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has a right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."

Now these persons, were they given the chance or have they ever applied to change their nationality? No. Let us take their cases, Sir, one by one, or I will quote one instance, the case of Wong Yih Ching. I am told that he was born in Segamat, Johore, in 1932. I also understand that his father is now a registered Federation citizen. This shows beyond doubt, Sir, that the loyalty of the father and the son is with Malaya and nowhere else, not with a foreign country. His relatives, I am told again, were also educated in Malaya and none of his relatives had ever left the shores of Malaya. I understand also that he was a registered voter and voted in the last Legislative Assembly elections in 1955. He might have cast his vote to put the Labour Front into power, or to put any one of us here today. If it were not for that vote, one of us might not be here today. Now, what did he get in return for casting his vote for us to be here? The return that we offered him is to send him to China, a foreign country. It is really curious, Sir, that this man, although born in Malaya and detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and not under the Banishment Ordinance, is being banished. The persons mentioned in my motion were arrested under the P.P.S.O., they were not detained under the Banishment Ordinance, and although they were born in Malaya, they were banished. I cannot understand the acts of the Government. But some persons who were born in China and were actually detained under the Banishment Ordinance are free to move about in this country. This is the type of discrimination I cannot understand. So much has been talked this morning about Dr Chuang; so much has been talked about Linda Chen; are not these two China-born persons? Were not these two persons arrested under the Banishment Ordinance? In spite of the fact that they were born in China and detained under the Banishment Ordinance, they are set free without an explanation from the Government. But these seven persons, born, bred and educated in Malaya, are banished, though they were detained at that time under the P.P.S.O. and not under the Banishment Ordinance. I remember, Sir, at one time when a Member of this House tabled questions on the Banishment Orders in respect of those persons born in China (not these seven persons), the then Acting Chief Secretary replied that those persons were detained and would be banished after very, very careful consideration. I am referring to those persons who were born in China, that is, Dr Chuang and Linda Chen. Now, after the decision has been taken with very, very careful consideration, the Government can revoke the Banishment Orders in respect of these persons. I cannot understand this. However, I am happy that these persons are now set free, because at that time when they were detained, I was in full sympathy with them too. So I am very happy that they are now free, as a result of the sympathy, I suppose, of the Chief Minister. Just compare the vast difference between these two instances - born in Malaya, detained under the P.P.S.O. but banished to China; born in China detained under the Banishment Ordinance, but are free in Singapore. What a vast difference! These persons have no relatives, no brothers, no sisters, nor anyone in China, and China is a foreign place to them. They were never educated nor ever went to Formosa; now when they are sent to a foreign country, how can we expect them to exist? I cannot understand. Sir, both the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance and the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya confer citizenship rights on these persons. They ought to have been allowed to register themselves either as Federal citizens or Singapore citizens; but just because they were detained, they have been deprived of the right to register themselves as citizens of either territory. Article 16 of the Federation Constitution provides citizenship by registration of persons born in the Federation of Malaya after Merdeka Day. Therefore, Sir, under this article, these seven persons should have been entitled and given the privilege to register themselves as Federal citizens. According to that Constitution the only qualifications required are: (1) that a person intends to stay permanently in Malaya; (2) he must be of good character; and (3) he must have an elementary knowledge of Malay. These seven persons, to my knowledge, do have all these qualifications and should be entitled to the protection provided for under this article.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Chief Minister: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Yes, Sir.

The Chief Minister: Sir, the hon. Member is misled. May I ask him whether he really means that he knows that they are of good character, in his own opinion?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: According to the Citizenship Ordinance itself, I cannot find the definition of the words "good character". As far as that Ordinance is concerned, the word "character" appears only on Forms (A) and (B) with a small footnote. So the expression "good character" as defined there is not clearly understood. Secondly, a man who has not been imprisoned should be deemed to be of "good character". Unless he has been sent to gaol for more than twelve months - I believe that is the interpretation - then only can we deem such person to be not of good character. That is why I say, Sir, in the absence of any conviction of any of these persons, they should be deemed to be of good character. How could you classify them as of "bad character" when they were never convicted? I hope that the Chief Minister will agree with the interpretation of this expression "good character". Had it not been for their detention, Sir, I am sure that they would have got themselves registered either as Federal citizens or Singapore citizens; and even then, if they are released from detention, they are still entitled to register themselves as Federal citizens. This fact was confirmed in a statement given to the Press on the 3rd of September, 1958, by a spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs. It appeared in the Singapore Standard of 3rd September. 1958, and this is what appeared therein:

"Kuala Lumpur, Tuesday - A person who is eligible for Federal citizenship is not disqualified from applying for it even if he is detained in Singapore for political reasons. He can still be considered to be of good character."

This was stated by the spokesman - "he can still be considered to be of good character" although he was or he can be detained in Singapore for political reasons - that is what is meant by "good character".

"This was disclosed to The Standard by the Ministry for External Affairs spokesman, Inche Zaiton Ibrahim, and the Senior Registration Officer, Mr J. R. G. Jenkins, today.

In the Constitution, a person is considered not to be of good character if he has been sentenced to death or imprisoned for 12 months or more for a criminal offence within three years immediately proceeding his application.

If his application succeeds, then he can at any time return to the Federation without any hindrance. The Federation cannot deny him his right to return, said Inche Zaiton."

Just as the Chief Minister was referring to Mr Lim Kean Chye - he is a Singapore citizen, be was born in Singapore, and you cannot deny him the right to return. Persons eligible for citizenship can apply from anywhere -

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

The Chief Minister: A point of correction, Sir.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: All right, go ahead!

The Chief Minister: Mr Lirn Kean Chye was not born in Singapore.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Sir, if I am correct, it was the Chief Minister himself who said that Mr Lim Kean Chye could not be denied the right to return because he was born or he is a British subject and you cannot deny him the right to enter; but whatever happens to him after his entry, it is left to be seen, he cannot say yes or no. Persons eligible for citizenship call apply from anywhere outside the Federation, as Mr Jenkins said. "From anywhere" means even from outside Singapore or the Federation of Malaya. They can apply for registration as citizens.

Mr Speaker: Order. I understood the hon. Member to say that he was quoting from a newspaper. I do not think that that document he is reading from looks like a newspaper.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Well, Sir, this is an extract from the Singapore Standard.

Mr Speaker: Order. Then I might inform the hon. Member that if a quotation is to be made from a newspaper, that newspaper ought to be produced.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I beg your pardon, Sir. I will bear that in mind in future, and I will produce the paper concerned, if I do quote from it.

Sir, is this act of the Government not of oppression? Is this not cruelty, by sending people away to a foreign country? We have legislation in Singapore, Sir, to punish persons who are cruel to animals and poultry, including fowls. When a fowl is carried in a cruel way, Government punishes the wrongdoer. Yet it is the Government which is the wrongdoer, because it commits the extreme cruelty by deporting these seven persons by separating them from their children, their brothers, their sisters, their wives, or whatever relatives they may have. So is this not a cruel thing to do? Is there no law whereby we can protect these persons? If we can have a law to protect cruelty to animals, why then cannot we have a law to protect cruelty to human beings? Are human beings worse than animals? Let us put it that way.

Sir, in this Assembly we have never passed any law or rule to prevent a detainee from being registered as a citizen of Singapore. I cannot remember that. So then why should Government misuse or twist a phrase of the law and thus bring it into disrepute? Should democracy be exercised in favour of only the very few rich and self-centred politicians? Justice must be done to one and all, and not only to a very few elected politicians or high-class people. Unless detainees can be tried in the courts of law, why disregard the law and deny them this legal right? Now, take the case of Lim Inn Ping. He was, I understand, a former President of the Singapore Taxi Drivers' Union. He was born in 1923 in Yong Peng, Johore, which is very close to Singapore. He was educated in Malaya, and was also a voter in the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections in 1955. Surprisingly, Sir, in the last Cairnhill by-election he was a proposer of a candidate who contested that ward for the by-election. If he is a man of bad character, if he is a subversive element, why was he allowed to be a proposer of a candidate to contest the by-election in Cairnhill? It is rather unfortunate that that candidate is not successful, so we have a new Member for Cairnhill sitting with us here. Had that candidate been the Member for Cairnhill today and sitting with us in this Assembly, I am sure that I can receive one more vote. Inn Ping is married and has a wife in Singapore also. This man has no relatives, as I have emphasised again and again, in China and why should he be banished then? The same applies to the others mentioned in my motion. Many of them, I believe, were also voters in the last Legislative Assembly elections. Had it not been for their votes, as I say, the Labour Front may not have come into power, or some of us may not have been here. But I think that the votes went to the P.A.P., that is, for the Members for Tanjong Pagar, Sembawang and Ponggol-Tampines. These people are more inclined to the P.A.P. than anybody else.

All this, Sir, is quite clear to us now that the Government's action to deport them to China is very, very high-handed. It is also dictatorial and a gross abuse of human rights. Therefore, I appeal to Members to support my motion though I doubt I can have the support of the whole House. Maybe I will have the support of two or three Members. We must, therefore, then strongly deplore and condemn the undemocratic attitude and the high-handed action of the Government to banish these seven persons to China against their will. We must also ask Government to revoke this decision and bring back these persons to their place of birth, which is Malaya. Unless that is done, Sir, their parents, their wives, or brothers and sisters, would never be happy, as the Chief Minister said this morning. He has sympathy, he is human and he knows the grievances of these persons. So if he does really feel sorry for these persons and know what sorrow is, I think he should with all his power revoked the decision and bring them back. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Seah Peng Chuan (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage.

Question proposed.

4.57 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have difficulty in containing myself within parliamentary language. I listened with dismay to some of the remarks made from the Opposition earlier this morning when we debated the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. I nearly rose then. I must quote what the hon. Member for Queenstown repeatedly used, words such as "inhuman", "contempt for human rights" and "cruel, brutal, merciless", and so forth.

It is the function of a government to maintain internal peace and to secure the lives of citizens from those who illegally use force. This House has fully assented to that view as regards secret society gangsters. Everyone recognizes the need for that, or nearly everybody recognizes the need for that, except some gangsters. Everybody who seriously looks at the facts of the situation knows perfectly well that secret society gangsters' use of violence is of less importance than the Communist use of violence.

I happened just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, to be in the Library and read the latest copy of the "New Statesman". I cannot produce it unless you wish me to. But I have made a note of the figures quoted therein. The Acting Prime Minister of the Federation is quoted as giving the following figures of people killed, wounded and missing in the course of the Emergency in the Federation: 3,674 Malays 14,213 Chinese 765 Indians 349 Europeans and 240 Aborigines

These are men, women and children, in many cases members of families with their relatives, and these are people whose relatives are suffering; not suffering by seeing somebody sent overseas, but seeing them wounded or murdered; seeing their bodies brought home and having to do without them forever afterwards, and to know that they died in a cruel and horrible war.

The hon. Member asked, "Are human beings worse than animals?" The answer is definitely yes in some cases. Animals have not killed 19,000 human beings in Malaya. It is human beings who have killed 19,000 human beings, and will continue to do it unless the forces of law and order use the necessary courage in facing this unhappy aspect of society. It is difficult to contain one's impatience with people who, for purposes best known to themselves, get up and put up an inaccurate and ill-prepared case and mix it up with words which ought not to be used in this connection - inhuman cruelty and phrases of that sort. The inhuman cruelty lies on the other side of the fence, and it is against that inhuman cruelty that the Government must act with strength to protect the harmless and innocent citizens of this country.

5.01 p.m.

Mr David: Sir, before I come to the motion itself, I would like just to clear up one or two points of fact arising out of the speech of the hon. Member for Queenstown. In the first place, Mr Lim Kean Chye is a British subject born in Malaya, and under our immigration legislation he has the right of entry to Singapore.

The second point, Sir, is that the hon. Member referred to one of the persons mentioned in his motion as being married, and he then went on to say that the same thing applied to all the others. In fact, all the other six persons mentioned in his motion are single persons with no dependants.

I should now like to return to the terms of the motion itself. The motion, Sir, seems to me to be rather an inept attempt by the use of confusing language to try and imply that the law in this matter is something different from what it is. The Member for Queenstown is fully aware that if the persons whose cause he is pleading had any claim arising from their birth in the Federation of Malaya, that claim could only rest against the Government of the Federation. What is crystal clear is that they are not British subjects, nor are they Singapore citizens and can have no conceivable claim on that ground to a right of residence in Singapore. Nevertheless, he seeks by the use of some loose phraseology, associating the Federation of Malaya and Singapore together, to imply not only that birth in the Federation in some way confers rights in Singapore, but also that the Singapore Government is under an obligation to accept greater responsibilities on behalf of these persons than the Federation Government is itself prepared to accept. Looking, Sir, at the operative terms of this motion - "these persons were born, bred and educated in Malaya, which term in law means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, thereby, depriving the aforesaid natural born, persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or of the Federation of Malaya" - that phraseology will bear a little analysis. "Malaya, which term in law means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore". Certainly, Sir, the term "Malaya" is used as a convenient geographical description for the Malay Peninsula, including Singapore, but by what conceivable authority does the hon. Member claim that the use of this geographical expression in itself can create any rights or obligations? The word "Assembly" is a term in law used to embrace all the Members in this House, both Members on the Government Bench and Members on the Opposition Bench - not forgetting yourself, Mr Speaker - but it would be equally logical to claim that the use of the word "Assembly" created and imposed an obligation on the Members of the opposite side of the House to vote for the Government. No, Sir, the fact is that this term is a descriptive, geographical term, whether it be Malaya or the Malayan Archipelago, South-East Asia or anything else, and in itself it can create no rights and impose no obligations.

Going on a little further, Sir, with the terms of this motion - "thereby depriving the aforesaid natural-born persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or the Federation of Malaya" - what rights of citizenship does the hon. Member refer to? He must be well aware, or if he is not, his advisers certainly are, that citizenship -

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I have no advisers, Sir.

Mr David: I beg his pardon! - citizenship both in the Federation and in Singapore is defined and governed by law; and in the law - Singapore citizenship law - there is no mention of the word "Malaya". What then does he mean by the words "whether of Singapore or the Federation of Malaya"? Does he mean that they were born on the causeway? If not, is he trying to assert that these persons in fact had Singapore citizenship? If he is, then let him say so. The fact is that he knows perfectly well that he cannot make that assertion. Is he then asserting that these persons had citizenship of the Federation, Federal citizenship? Again he knows quite well that he cannot assert anything of the kind. Then what does he mean by this term, "inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or of the Federation of Malaya"? I suggest, Sir, that it is just a nice high-sounding phrase which means precisely nothing.

What the hon. Member is really getting at and what is behind his motion, I suggest, is the point on which he only touched very briefly, and that is that these persons ought to be recognised by the Federation Government as being eligible and having the right to Federal citizenship. But that is not the way in which he has expressed his motion: firstly, because it would be an attack on the Federation Government, which he probably is reluctant to undertake; and, secondly, Sir, because it would be ruled out of order by yourself; and, thirdly, because he wants to train his guns on the Singapore Government which, as he well knows, has no responsibility for the citizenship laws of the Federation. Moreover, it may interest him to know that the Federation Government was consulted and concurred in these banishments. I suggest, Sir, that the action taken in these cases is legally unassailable and the hon. Member knows it, for all the cloud of verbiage, with which he seeks to surround it.

What then, Sir, are the merits? The hon. Member for Queenstown painted a picture of sorrow and hardship with the evident intention of trying to enlist the sympathy of his hearers for these poor unfortunate persons. Here again, Sir, when the embellishments of which he is such a pastmaster have been stripped off the canvas, what in fact are the realities that remain? What have these people done to deserve the sympathy for which he so eloquently appeals? What they have done is to associate themselves with the Communist plot to overthrow democracy in Malaya, which means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore; what they have done is to show their disloyalty to the country of their birth, whether it be the Federation or Singapore. We are asked to contemplate their plight in China, but I suggest, Sir, that that is a country in which they will be able to indulge their activities - Communist activities in which they have been engaged - and a place also where they will be able to see to what those activities lead. In short, Sir, I suggest to this House that neither in law nor in equity does this motion carry any substance. On the contrary, in this as in other measures to combat the ever-present threat of subversion, the Government has done no more and no less than its duty by the people of this island.

5.11 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must tell the Member for Queenstown that I view with grave concern, and am profoundly disturbed by his action in having so foolishly and tactlessly condemned the Federation citizenship laws. When I look at this motion, Sir, I am quite sure that those of us who have had the pleasure of knowing the Member for Queenstown will know that he was not responsible for such imprecise language.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of order, Sir. Is that an inference from the Member for Tanjong Pagar?

Mr Speaker: Order. I just want a little more information from the Member for Queenstown. What does he mean by "inference"?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I would like the Member for Tanjong Pagar to repeat that - that it is not mine but it is someone else's. Is that his inference?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wanted to convey was that we all have such a high opinion of the Member for Queenstown, that we find it difficult to believe that he could be responsible for this atrocity!

Mr Speaker: Then, having heard both sides to the question, I must rule that this is not a point of order, because I cannot find anything offensive about the remark of the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your ruling on the point. What I was going to say was that I have searched diligently through all the laws in which the word "Malaya" means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. I thought that somehow or the other I must have missed some of them, and that he, doubtless having better legal advisers than the People's Action Party -

Mr Lee Choon Eng rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of information, Sir. I have emphasised again and again that I have no advisers with me and I cannot afford to pay any adviser.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to see that he is so determined to disavow the wrong advice he has received. However, I then came across the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya which, for his easy reference, is in the Library of this Assembly - R. 342.595. It seems that these people were born in Malaya; and according to this bit of legalese in the motion: "depriving the aforesaid natural born persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship". I went diligently through this Constitution and came across Article 16. The marginal note reads:

"Citizenship by registration (persons born in the Federation before Merdeka Day)." Sir, we have not been given the ages of these six persons, but I presume that they must have been born before Merdeka Day. I would therefore like to read to the House what Article 16 says:

"Subject to Article 18, any person of or over the age of eighteen years who was born in the Federation before Merdeka Day is entitled, upon making application to the registration authority, to be registered as a citizen if he satisfies that authority -

(a) that he has resided in the Federation, during the seven years immediately preceding the date of the application, for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than five years;

(b) that he intends to reside permanently therein;

(c) that he is of good character; and

(d) except where the application is made within one year after Merdeka Day, that he has an elementary knowledge of the Malay language."

I shall not harass the Member for Queenstown with Article 18, but this Article is the saving provision as to the procedure by which these things are done and the exceptions to the general rule.

Sir, what I would like to draw the attention of Members of the House to is this. There were 70 odd banishments, but the Member for Queenstown has chosen to raise not the principle of banishment as such, but the question of the right of these six persons. It means, in effect, a motion of censure on the Federation Government Constitution because it has not recognised the principle of jus soli. Sir, that is a matter to which I think the Member for Queenstown may want to apply himself. I should think it is an extremely large and profitable field and he would find a great number of supporters for the principle of jus soli. In fact, it is one of the pivotal points of the Federation Constitution. But I would advise Members of this Assembly not to enter into the affray. This is a matter on which we would be well advised not to express any opinion.

I say this categorically: that even on the present Federation Constitution, my party would be prepared, if we had any say in the fate of Singapore, to enter the Federation as a member State, accepting the citizenship clauses and the Articles regarding the acquisition and the loss of citizenship.

If the Member for Queenstown could find some politician in the Federation to take this matter up, that is a matter for him to take up; but for us the motion really means: (1) condemn the Federation Government for not recognising the principle of jus soli; (2) condemn the Singapore Government for having refused to allow Singapore to become a place of refuge for all those whom the Federation Government does not want.

I think those who had advised the Member for Queenstown on this matter must be fully aware that the Federation Government is consulted on all banishments of persons born in the Federation. In fact, all those who are intimately associated with the procedure in these matters will know that they were, in fact, sent back to the Federation and boarded a ship from a Federation port. And if the Federation does not want them, then I suggest that it is not the business of this Assembly to embarrass the position between Singapore and the Federation by bringing up motions of this character. The persons who advised - who did not advise the Member for Queenstown - to bring up this motion should think well before they do more damage to the already strained and serious relationship between the two territories.

Sir, I say flatly and categorically that from time to time we will have to face stupid, irresponsible motions which would appeal to the emotions of people. Everybody feels sorry for these six persons and their families; but I would say I am more concerned - may I read the terms of the motion, because I should like to follow the words more closely - I express my grave concern and am profoundly disturbed by the action of the Member for Queenstown in having done something which has aggravated the position, and further I deplore and strongly condemn those who have led him into this ill-advised course.

5.20 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed not surprised to see this motion introduced in this House by the Member for Queenstown. It is a motion which shows disregard of the facts and a lamentable ignorance of the law of citizenship which was passed by this House last year. The Government does not deny that it had knowledge that certain banishees had claimed birth in the Federation. But I do not admit, and neither does the Singapore citizenship law concede, that persons born in the Federation of Malaya possess in-alienable rights.

Sir, it has been pointed out by the Chief Secretary that before banishment proceedings were taken against these persons, so honourably named by the Member for Queenstown in his motion, the Federation Government was consulted and the Federation Government agreed that banishment proceedings should be taken.

Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown asked me so many questions and would have this House believe that he is the champion of the poor people who were banished and those who were left behind - the relatives of those banished. I do not think, Sir, that the hon. Member can honestly say that these "near relatives", as he called them - perhaps he was just reading a letter signed "near relatives" because it did not mention any names - that these near relatives did not go to his house time and again to beseech him to help. Sir, I had to meet all these people who came to the office by their numbers without appointment. They came to the Labour Ministry without appointment. They came to my house at all hours of the day and night. In fact, they cried; they wailed; they mourned; so much so that at times passers-by along Sims Avenue thought there must have been a bereavement in my family. I had to bear all that - not the hon. Member for Queenstown. To say that I cried is not it. To say that I found it difficult to sleep at night because I had to do this is still not it. I went through hell. I literally went through that until I was sick; but because I know that I have a duty to per- form to the people of Singapore, I did not shirk my duty. The security of Singapore should come first, and not Lim Yew Hock, the Labour Front, or the Labour Front Coalition Government.

Sir, we have in this Assembly heard too many times and much too often criticisms from some Members of the Opposition who are so irresponsible in their utterances that I begin to believe that they do not understand their responsibilities to their electorate and to the country. I am indeed surprised to see in the motion that only seven names were mentioned, six of whom were represented by one legal adviser. May I tell him, if he feels that it would make his case stronger, that there were ten banishees who were born in the Federation of Malaya and who were banished not so long ago, and that despite his accusations and irresponsible utterances hurled at us, we will not be deterred? If the security of Singapore is at stake and if it is necessary that people born in the Federation have to be banished because of their subversive activities, this Government will not shirk its duty.

5.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Choon Eng, in reply?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply I will first deal with the Minister for Communications and Works. He tells us that the function of a government is to maintain peace, and those who illegally use force will have to be punished. I can agree with him. Those who go against the laws of the Government must be punished. The Minister then quotes figures of the number of persons killed - Malays, Chinese, Eurasians and Europeans. Sir, my motion in fact does not say that they should not be detained or arrested or anything. It is concerned with the way in which the persons mentioned therein were deported. They were born in Malaya and they were deported to a foreign country, China. My motion does not say that the Government should not punish such persons. If anybody transgresses the laws of the Government, it is right that the Government should punish such a wrongdoer by law.

Coming to the Chief Secretary, Sir, he, in conjunction with the Member for Tanjong Pagar, tries to interpret the term "Malaya" in law. I have no legal background and I am not a lawyer. I bow to both of them who have gone through a period of legal training. I got my interpretation of the term "Malaya", which means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, from the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 2). As I have no legal background, I am not prepared to argue this with them, who have. Whether the interpretation of the term is what it says in the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, that is up to the Government to say so. As a layman, I interpret the definition as I read it.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar says that there were about 70 banishees and it is rather surprising that my motion only mentions 7 names. The Chief Minister also says that it is rather surprising that I am only interested in these 7 persons. In my opening speech I emphasised that I tabled this motion because the near relatives of these 7 persons approached me and, as a man serving the public, if representations are made to me, it is my duty, if I feel it is right, to represent their cases to this Assembly. If all the 70 persons had approached me, I would have done the same thing, if my conscience says it is right to do so. So it is not a case of 7 or 70 persons at all.

The Chief Minister mentions that six of these persons were represented by a lawyer. Well, that is no concern of mine. What I am concerned is this: if anybody approaches me to represent his case to this Assembly and if I am convinced that it is in the interests of the public, I will do it.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar says that these people were sent to the Federation. With due respect to his legal qualifications and background, I wonder why he terms it that they were deported or sent to the Federation. They were deported to China via the Federation. I think that is the correct term, rather than that they were deported to the Federation. If they were deported to the Federation, then, as the Chief Minister says that he had consulted the Federation Government, it was up to the Federation Government to decide whether they were prepared to accept them or not. Deporting a person straight to China via a number of countries through which this person has to pass does not necessarily mean that he is deported to all these countries. I am quite sure that the boat which brought these persons mentioned in the motion to China did not call at a Federation port only. If the interpretation of the Member for Tanjong Pagar is correct - that these persons were deported to the Federation - then I would say that they were not only deported to the Federation but deported also to the many countries at which the boat carrying them would call.

It is rather surprising that, as a legal man, the Member for Tanjong Pagar has to use the words that I have used in my motion, and that is, "I express my grave concern and am profoundly disturbed by the action of the Member for Queenstown". He has been in this Assembly for quite a long time, and if he really feels gravely concerned and disturbed by my actions, I would invite him to table a motion of this nature to the Assembly, rather than use the words of my motion and attack me. He has every right to move such a motion as a Member of this Assembly. I will leave that to him. He knows better.

Question put.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Division, Sir,

The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 23; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Lazarous, A. R. Abdul Hamid bin Lee Choon Eng. Haji Jumat. Seah Peng Chuan. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Ede, John. Abstention Goh Chew Chua. Jumabhoy, J. M. Nil. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Absent Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Goh Tong Liang. Oon Khye Kiang. Jumabhoy, R. Shanks, E. P. Lim Cher Kheng. Soh Ghee Soon. Lim Ching Siong. Tan Theng Chiang. Mason, J. M. Tan, William. Tan Siak Kew. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Motion accordingly negatived.