INVESTIGATIONS INTO BANK ACCOUNT OF MR CHEW SWEE KEE (Commission of Inquiry)

3.45 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not often in the last two years that we have had drama enacted in this Assembly. I had looked forward to this afternoon. I had eagerly awaited the big surprise that was to come when the Minister for Education was confronted with the truth. I had seriously prepared my brief for the last two weeks. Unfortunately, Sir, when the accused was to be brought to trial, he jumped bail and absconded.

Sir, it is not my purpose to prosecute Mr Chew. I have never, nor has my Chairman ever, accused him of a criminal act in respect of the half a million dollars. I think it salutary if we first trace the beginnings of this issue as a result of which one Acting Comptroller of Income Tax had a heart attack and died on a Monday, one Minister has resigned, and I am told, there is every possibility that the substantive Comptroller of Income Tax may never return from his leave.

Sir, let us begin from the beginning - the 15th of February. I would like to preface my remarks by saying this - that I do not think, in view of what the Hon. Mr Chew has done, that there is any doubt as to the truth of what the Chairman of the P.A.P. stated, and a Commission of Inquiry is completely unnecessary to prove the allegations that we made. But I do suggest to the Government that, though I am no longer interested in a Commission of Inquiry, because the truth in so far as we are concerned is already out, if they say that they are not implicated in this, then it is their business to clear themselves by a Commission of Inquiry or any other means.

But to go back to the 15th of February, at the first pre-election rally of the P.A.P. at Hong Lim Green, where Dr Toh Chin Chye, the Chairman, opened with an analysis of the current situation in Singapore. He stated, inter alia, that "second powerful patrons for Tun Lim and the S.P.A. are the British and the Americans." Then with regard to the Americans, he said, "But the Americans are less discreet. They have lots of money, so there is no difficulty at all in giving money to those whom they hope to win and it is an open secret that income tax investigation into the half a million dollar account at the First National City Bank of New York in the name of a Minister was quickly choked off, because this money, being a political gift, was not liable to income tax. Americans are very slow in learning that those who can be bought for money are not worth the buying."

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member identify the paper?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, this was a speech made by the Chairman of the P.A.P. and it has been reproduced in the March issue of the Petir.

The Straits Times then carried the story on the 16th of February, at page 5. On the 16th there were big consultations between bank officials, the U.S. Consul-General and the S.P.A. leadership. Wishing to be helpful as usual, the Straits Times gave a banner headline "That $500,000,000" - er - "$500,000". I am sure Mr Chew wishes it is $500 million. It is much more worthwhile. "I deny this. A stupid lie! ", says the S.P.A. Sir, this is very interesting because I think this sparked off the whole dispute. We have never accused any Minister of the Government of robbing any bank or cheating anybody of $500,000. All we said was, from an American source, there was $500,000 in the name of a Minister of the Government in the First National City Bank of New York. We even named the bank, just to be helpful, and that income tax investigations were started and choked off.

Sir, I would like to tell the Financial Secretary this: that one of the duties of the civil service is to carry out orders, but they have to be lawful orders. He need not answer, but if he does, he should give correct and truthful answers. I would like to tell him this: there is very little about this case that we do not know about.

Sir, we go back to the 17th of February - the Straits Times. This is, I think, the biggest blunder ever made by a group of politicians with the help of bank officials and consular staff. They went and denied the truth. One could laugh at truth, brush it aside, and pretend that it does not exist. But to deny it and call the other man a liar, then it becomes an issue. Because, first of all, you confess that what was stated, if true, was most discreditable and damaging, and that it was wrong; and secondly, you compel your opponent to force the issue. It says here:

"The Singapore People's Alliance today denied a P.A.P. allegation that the Americans had given the party $500,000."

Sir, we never said they had given the S.P.A. $500,000. At the time when the money was paid the S.P.A. had not been formed. It is obvious in my motion that investigations into this account stopped in September 1958. We did not say it was the S.P.A. We said it was a group. It did not matter whether it was the S.P.A. or any other name.

"The U.S. Consulate-General also issued a statement denying that the U.S. Government had made any contribution to the S.P.A. and emphasising that it was U.S. Government policy not to interfere in the political affairs of other nations."

We never said it was the U.S. Government. We said it was from an American source - $500,000 in an American bank. That is all.

Now, Mr Newell. This is the art, popularly called in Latin - suppressio veri suggestio falsi - you, state the truth in a form which does not make it, strictly speaking, an untruth, but you thereby suggest a lie. And Mr R. P. Newell, General Manager of the Singapore Branch of the First National City Bank of New York, said:

"There had been no income tax investigation concerning an alleged $500,000 account in the bank.

'No one from the income tax department has asked us if there is such an account', he said.

Mr Newell added that no individual in the Singapore Government had such an account with the bank."

Sir, that is a little bit foolish because Mr Chew, as part of his farewell gesture before he absconded, said that he did have an account at this bank, but nothing like $500,000. I can quite believe that it must have gone down somewhat since it was first credited to his name.

Nevertheless, let us hear what Mr Wang Tsun Hao, Secretary-General of the S.P.A., said:

'"The statement made by the PAP Chairman, Dr Toh Chin Chye, that the SPA is receiving monetary aid from bank cornpradores and British and Americans, is as false as it is stupid.

The allegation that the Americans had given $500,000 to the SPA is completely unfounded."

Mr Wang added: "Since the PAP is so interested in rumours and lies, it should not ignore the rumour that the PAP is receiving aid from international sources through a local bank.

It should also not ignore the rumour that $100,000 of trade union funds went into the PAP treasury."'

Sir, I am sorry for Mr Wang. I do not know if he was aware of the truth when he issued the statement, or who advised him to issue that statement. But I am sorry to say that, because he was so ill advised as to call the Chairman of the P.A.P. a liar, we called for a Commission of Inquiry. There was no crime. No act of illegality had been committed. We have not accused the Income Tax Department of doing something irregular. In fact, we admit that if the money was a political gift, as we say it must have been, then it is not liable to income tax. But I will come to the business of the choking-off.

The Financial Secretary said yesterday that Mr Chew never saw Mr Holloway. I know Mr Chew saw Mr Holloway and that it was recorded in a file. But before we reach that point, may I say what happened as a result of that denial? Dr Toh said - it was published in the Straits Times on 18th February:

"Mr Newell, the manager of the National City Bank of New York, said his bank was not involved in any income tax investigations. But I said that investigations had been initiated and were stopped.

Mr Newell said no person in the Singapore Government now has such an account. But he did not say that no money had ever at any time been remitted to his bank to be operated by a Minister of the Singapore Government.

The U.S. Consulate-General denied the U.S. Government paid money to the SPA. We have never alleged that the U.S. Government was involved."

But then the call for a Commission of Inquiry, just to establish facts. We have not suggested a crime was committed. But since we were called liars for telling the truth, then the truth should be known. When I had to table a motion in order to have this matter brought up in this Assembly, the Straits Times on the 19th February carried Mr Chew Swee Kee's portrait on the front page - and his famous last words, "My conscience is clear."

"Asked for his comments on Mr Lee's motion, Mr Chew Swee Kee told the Straits Times tonight: 'My conscience is clear, I have nothing to fear.'"

It is almost a doggerel. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. There seems to be some disorder in the Strangers' Gallery. Mr Serjeant-at-Arms, please attend to it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: To carry on, Sir.

"He said that he would answer the PAP motion 'personally and fully' at the Assembly meeting.

'And when I do, there may be some surprises for the PAP,' Mr Chew said. 'I will not say anything now. The motion is a big political stunt.'"

Sir, I was looking forward to this big surprise which was going to be sprung upon us, and I prepared myself with the necessary data in respect of this transaction May I say that people who run newspapers should be careful before they pass judgment on the acts of political leaders? For instance, the Straits Times of the 17th of February in an editorial was ill-advised to take sides on this matter before they knew the truth. It says:

"Dr Toh laced the smear with the charge that the Americans have banked half a million dollars in the name of one of Singapore's Ministers, a fine tale which has promptly been denied. This unsupported charge, and the curious attack ..."

and so on, and so on-

"...a dirty beginning to the coming elections."

Yes, but the dirt does not come from us. We just disclosed it to make sure that people did not get contagious germs as a result of the dirt.

Sir, it is my duty now, briefly, to recite the facts, because Mr Chew, as he left his duties yesterday, saw fit to issue a statement in which he said, inter alia, published in today's Straits Times:

"In fact the Government decided to oppose the motion that was coming up for debate on March 4 and there was, therefore, no question of any fear that a Commission of Inquiry would be set up."

I am astounded at the audacity of this man. First of all, he is breaching the Official Secrets Act by letting out what the Council of Ministers had decided in privacy. Secondly, he says:

"Well, since there is not going to be an inquiry on me, therefore I leave with my conscience clear."

Then he goes on to say:

"I will fight the election under the S.P.A. banner."

Presumably he will, because if he is the man that has the money, he calls the tune.

"I can now devote more time to party organisation."

Sir, everybody knows what organisation the S.P.A. has got in its air-conditioned office in Victoria Street. But not everybody knows where the money came from. But now we do. And I say quite frankly that there is nothing which I am going to state which are not facts and which I cannot justify up to the hilt. I do not require a Commission of Inquiry. Mr Chew's absence today is a confession that he is guilty. I further suggest this: that although he is not guilty of any crime, but of a treacherous political act, the fact that he commits political suicide does not absolve his accomplices. It may prevent his accomplices from being discovered, because he has betaken himself to another place, but it does not absolve them altogether. But he did admit this - and this appears in the Singapore Standard of today's date, 4th March, page four:

"Asked whether it was true that he had had an account with the National City Bank, Mr Chew said it was."

Well, well, why did the manager say "No"?

Sir, the facts are there. First, for the benefit of the Financial Secretary, we will just tell him that we have got all the cards on the table. Mr Chew's file is G.S. 47909. As a former Government servant, he has the cipher "G.S.". Investigations were commenced into this account in September 1958. Mr Chew went and saw Mr Holloway. There was some explanation and investigations were lifted from their normal course. We are not suggesting that it was wrong that no income tax was to be imposed. We admit that if it was a political gift, there should be no income tax.

We also know that Mr Chew paid out of this account a sum of $30,000 to Mr Liu Yi Chih, former proprietor of the Ih Shih Press, and with this money Mr Liu Yi Chih said he bought a house at No. 12, Worthing Road, Serangoon Garden Estate.

Sir, I could go into further details which do not really concern Mr Chew but will corroborate the general facts that we have got. What was this money for? Well, that is not our business. Whatever he and his caucus wanted to do with it was their business. But we say two sources can be checked with great ease: foreign exchange control and income tax. Foreign Exchange Control will show the transaction in U.S. dollars - about $150,000 (gold) - and Income Tax will show when investigations were commenced; when they were taken away from normal channels; when Mr Chew met Mr Holloway; and when investigations were stopped because the Comptroller of Income Tax was satisfied that it was not liable to income tax.

Sir, I am stating another fact openly and publicly because I do not think that there is anything to be gained by suppressing it, and I have the permission of the hon. Mr Francis Thomas, to do so. Mr Chew told Mr Thomas at the end of 1957 that he got $100,000 U.S. gold for the Party. Mr Thomas is here to answer, if I am accused of telling a lie. I have his permission to state this also. Mr Chew is not here. We shall hear what he has to say from the wilderness to which he has betaken himself. I say that that U.S. $100,000 gold was given to Mr Chew Swee Kee in 1957 for the purposes, inter alia, of the City Council elections; and in the same way over U.S. $150,000 gold, amounting to M$500,000 was given some time in 1958 for the same political purposes. These are irrefutable facts. I do not see why the Singapore People's Alliance got hot under the collar about this. We never said it was for the Sinapore People's Alliance. It was not formed yet. At that time, they were collecting all the chickens into the nest to field them as prospective candidates. Members of the Liberal-Socialist Party were being inveigled over. There was money for jam. Everybody was to get something. The name does not matter. It might be the People's Alliance; it might be the Donkeys' Parade. It might be anything. But the important fact is that the cash was there and Mr R. Jumabhoy has mentioned disclosures

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Member for Telok Ayer tells me that he has also got something on this. Sir, we do not want to have a Commission of Inquiry because we know the truth. The only tragedy is that the truth was denied. If Mr Chew or Mr Wang Tsun Hao said, "Oh, well, so what! Half a million dollars?" Do you know what they are saying in the coffee-shops? The workers say the Chinese are very good when they expel their saliva; they make a magnificent sound to accompany it. That is heard in the coffee-shops over this affair. But Mr Chew should hear what the bankers say, "Five hundred thousand dollars, is that all? So cheap, you could have bought out the whole gang for five hundred thousand dollars!" Why was he so silly? Sir,I do not know. It is not my business. No crime has been committed, but an act of political folly of the highest magnitude has been perpetrated. It is a matter for the Government whether they want to try to extr1cate themselves from the act of indiscretion of Mr Chew. The indiscretion lies not in the collection of $500,000, but in the folly of putting it in a bank in his name; he having once worked in the Income Tax Department should know that these things can be discovered. Sir, I had wanted to congratulate him today for his great qualities as a salesman, because if he could get $500,000 in hard cash from hard-boiled Americans, then it speaks volumes for his salesmanship, because, with his Party known to be bankrupt, it is really a masterly act of salesmanship which takes a lot to be excelled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts are there. They do not lie. We are not accustomed to being called liars. What we say we justify.

Sir, I beg to move,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed under the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance or otherwise to investigate and report on the facts regarding an account of about $500,000.00 in September 1958 in the First National City Bank of New York in the name of the Honourable Mr Chew Swee Kee and regarding the reasons why investigations in the matter for the purposes of Income Tax were not pursued by the officers responsible in the Income Tax Department.

4.09 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion for the purpose of the debate.

Up to yesterday, my Party was duty bound to press for a Commission of Inquiry. Today the position is radically different. Mr Chew Swee Kee has resigned on the eve of a debate on his financial activities. The people can draw their own conclusion. The obvious and correct conclusion is that he is made to shoulder the whole blame. His friends hope, by his act of self-destruction, that they can be spared from sharing his fate. But the people are not so stupid. The whole group is implicated. If they are not, then his former Ministerial colleagues should be the first to demand an inquiry to clear themselves, if they are guilty, then no inquiry will be held. Indeed, as far as we are concerned, the guilt has been admitted beyond all doubt by the former Minister on behalf of the whole group.

Question proposed.

4.10 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party, in the interest of justice, strongly supports this motion which has just been moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Sir, he has already stated the facts. What I am interested in is this: there are two issues involved. One is aid from the Americans in trying to influence the elections; the other is corruption on the Government side by accepting it.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar says-

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member alleging that the Government are corrupt? If he is, he is entirely out of order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: What I mean to say is, in the acceptance of $500,000.

Mr Speaker: Then the hon. Member should withdraw the word "corrupt".

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, I do withdraw it. What I mean is the acceptance, as alleged, of $500,000 from foreigners.

Now it is in the interest of both this Government and the American Government and/or its nationals that this issue should be cleared.

Sir, Asia is under-developed. Americans and Westerners are giving their aid to one or the other country and thereby having an economic hold on these countries. But those countries are independent and it is for them to accept it or not. We are still a Colony. So, is it right on the part of the Americans to send money to influence the political elections in this Colony?

Sir, we have been reading in the Press as to what has happened to the $500,000. Sir, in this morning's Straits Times - I am quoting from it - it says - this is Mr Chew's statement:

"I stress here that I have nothing to hide. My resignation was purely voluntary one on my part as I felt that the good name of the SPA must be maintained."

Sir, if one is a good businessman, one should defend oneself, and say that the accusation is either right or wrong. Here, in spite of this motion against him, he has resigned from his Ministership and the Assembly, to escape from having to reply. This is not enough. If he is escaping from having to reply as a Minister, then it is the collective responsibility of the other Ministers to reply. They must hold this inquiry, in fairness and justice to Singapore, and to the Americans as to whether or not the charges are true.

Now, Sir, about this flush of money. I understand from reliable sources that last month Mr Chew Swee Kee bought a house in Wilkinson Road for $75,000. There are also rumours that he has got mining interests in Ipoh. Sir, when Ministers take office, they have to declare their assets to His Excellency the Governor and we know what their incomes are. We also know that they are forbidden to trade, and if they do trade they must declare. Thus, with the limited income to meet Singapore's high cost of living, how much can one save? Where does the money come from after three or four years in office? Do you not think, Sir, that they must satisfy the public's query? It is the duty of the Council of Ministers to disclose all these things.

Sir, it will be very interesting to say from this side of the House that members of the Liberal-Socialists at a meeting said, not once but twice, that one of the chief reasons for leaving the Party was because the Party had not got money for elections. Here the S.P.A. has got plenty of money, tons of money! This was said in the Party meeting, and I can bring 40 or 50 witnesses if it is said that my statement is childish, or if it is challenged.

Sir, are the voters of Singapore so foolish as to allow their votes to be bought by foreign aid, or by any aid? They are no fools. Instead, they would reply that in the coming elections, the S.P.A.'s candidates would lose their deposits. And not only this, they should elect people of integrity of character who can safeguard the interests of Singapore and its people. Further, Sir, if I am elected, I would like the Government to inquire into the assets of those who are now in power - liquid assets, movable and immovable assets, either here or overseas, and either in their names or in their relatives' names. This has been done in other countries, Sir.

Sir, the S.P.A. presents a very sad spectacle. They were elected on the Labour Front ticket. The public chose to elect ten of them. With the contrivance and with the help of the nominated and ex-officio Members, they have governed for some time. Within three or six months, three of its members left the Party and came to our side. That is a fact - the ex-members are still here. And later, Sir, the former Chief Minister himself resigned his Chief Ministership and had to leave the Party.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member would try and assist the Chair and say how his remarks are related to the motion.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir. To satisfy you, I would say that it is the Government which has been formed by these elected Members that is being accused in this motion. Does that satisfy you, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot see any accusation against the Government. It seems to be an accusation against the Hon. Mr Chew Swee Kee, and the motion seeks to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into and report on the facts. There is no accusation against the Government in this motion.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: But I submit, Sir, that he was a Minister, and the responsibility rests with the Council of Ministers. If you say "No", I will not pursue this; but what I want to say is that as a political Party there are only three Ministers left today. One is ill, I believe, and I can see two here. After all these Budget speeches and the extravagance of expenditure in respect of travelling and entertainment and whatnots - I am sorry, I should not say "whatnots" - they have changed their label to the "S.P.A." The talk started that they have got plenty of money from British interests and from Chinese interests. We told our friends that there will be plenty of money, but the voters are no fools. The voters will judge the acts of the Government in power and then vote. If anybody accepts money, the people are not going to vote for him.

Sir, this motion is moved in the interests of justice and it is the duty of the present Government to clear up these accusations by holding a Commission of Inquiry. Sir, I would like to move an amendment to make it complete, but may I have your guidance whether I can move it now or after the Government's reply?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member is now speaking on the original motion, and if he wishes to move an amendment, he must do so now because he will not be able to speak again.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, since you want me to do so now, I will, but the amendment will be discussed and not the original motion. Sir, I move my amendment,

At the end, to add-

", and to inquire into the assets both movable and immovable held in Singapore or outside of Singapore in the name of the Chief Minister, Ministers, Assistant Ministers, or their relatives."

Am I in order, Sir?

Mr Speaker: May I have it in writing first, before I rule?

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member seeks to move an amendment,

At the end, to add-

", and to inquire into the assets both movable and immovable held in Singapore or outside of Singapore in the name of the Chief Minister, Ministers, Assistant Ministers, or their relatives."

The hon. Member, I take it, is aware of Standing Order 25 - possibly he has more experience of these Standing Orders than I have - which reads:

When any motion is under consideration in the Assembly or in a Committee thereof, an amendment may be proposed to the motion if it is relevant thereto.

To my mind, that amendment is completely irrelevant to the main motion, and therefore I over-rule it.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, since you over-rule it, I will take a chance to move a motion, if possible, at the next Assembly sitting on the 18th March. In the interests of Singapore, the investigations should be disclosed so that the people will know what is actually going on; how the administration has been going on for three and a half years.

Finally, I would ask non-Singapore citizens, whether they be Americans, British, Indians, or anyone, not to try and meddle in or influence our politics. We are just getting our so-called internal self-government. Singapore will still be a Colony. Let us try our own hand at democracy. Especially to the Britishers, I would say, "Save your money; save your interests in this country by not interfering or taking sides."

4.28 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as Chief Minister of the Government and as head of my political Party, it now behoves me to reply to the charges made by the mover of the motion. It is indeed regrettable that the person named is not here this afternoon to answer the charges specifically laid at his door. I must, I feel, in fairness to him, to my Ministerial colleagues and to my Party, say that he saw me yesterday and told me that he would resign his seat from the Assembly and as a Minister of the Government, because he felt that in doing this he would save some embarrassment for me and for my Party. I did not know and do not understand what caused him to take this line of reasoning. But I feel that as he was a loyal colleague of mine, and as he had given of his best whilst he was a Minister in the Government in the discharge of his portfolio, I thought that it would be proper for me to accede to his request. I allowed him to resign. I would have liked him to remain and face these charges and answer them, so that this Assembly as well as the public can have a proper assessment of whether or not such charges are true or unfounded, or are just mere political distortions. Unfortunately, he is not here to reply. But what I resent most strongly is the suggestion in the speech of the seconder of the motion that, by his resignation, he has damned all of his Ministerial colleagues, and that his resignation was as a result of the desire of my Government to make him the scapegoat. It is because of that that I feel that the truth should now be told, not only in regard to the allegations that have been made but also in regard to all the political manoeuvrings that have been taking place for the past three years, in order to build a healthier, better and non-Communist form of government. Moreover, Sir, as the time gets nearer and nearer towards the general elections, politics tend to get murkier and murkier, and in the urge to capture power, it is just regrettable that there are men who are prepared to forget the decencies of life, the decencies of leadership and stoop to the extent of doing something which, I must confess, was not expected this afternoon. I say, Sir, let the truth be known once and for all. Let the people of Singapore wake up to what has been going on and let them decide - and decide wisely at the general elections - so that the government that is returned can be a government that is clean, pure and sincere in its efforts to work for the welfare of the people.

Now, Sir, it grieves me to have to say things here which I would not ordinarily have said. But the Opposition speakers have forced the pace and forced the tone of this debate. When Mr Chew Swee Kee saw me yesterday morning, he said that he was prepared to resign from the Assembly and from his Ministry if I could speak to the leader of the P.A.P. to see whether all this unnecessary mud-slinging could be prevented, and if an assurance could be received from the leader of the P.A.P. that this motion would not take the trend it originally intended to take, he would resign. The answer was given in the affirmative, and he resigned. But this afternoon, after having received an assurance from the hon. Member of this Assembly, the man who hopes to be the next Prime Minister of this country, what do we get? All this mud-slinging at a man who cannot defend himself, who resigned just because of an assurance received from the hon. Member. That is the kind of political trickery which we have to contend with at this time when a new constitution is to come into force: when complete internal self-government is to be given to us to guide this country towards prosperity, towards cleanliness, towards all that we believe in, all that we have fought for. It is indeed a sad day for me to have to put that faith in something which I was advised would never be honoured.

Since it has now come to the stage, Sir, when it is felt necessary by the Opposition to try and make things as dirty as they can be against my loyal colleagues who have worked so hard, who have fought so vigorously with their hearts, their souls and their lives to keep this country from the grip of Communism, I find that the truth must now be told. I am sure the people of Singapore must have been wondering how it was that I succeeded in bringing an All-Party delegation to London and succeeded in bringing home a new constitution with the subversive clause. The truth shall now be told. If one side can play dirty and begin to be dirty, I shall play the same game and do it too, and let the country and the world and God decide. The subversive clause was put in as a result of the hon. Member and I seeing the Secretary of State for the Colonies-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: That is a downright lie!

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar rising on a point of order, or is it on a point of explanation? Can I have the answer?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Only if the Chief Minister will give way.

The Chief Minister: Sir,-

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Chief Minister: I am sorry, Sir.

Mr Speaker: There is another point which has struck me, that possibly all this matter is completely irrelevant to the motion, and, therefore, I ask the Chief Minister to switch his horses.

The Chief Minister: Irrelevant, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Irrelevant to the motion.

The Chief Minister: I submit to your ruling, Sir, but I must say that my heart aches inside me, and I am not ashamed if I were to cry here, and cry loudly. You have so ruled, Sir, but before you rule, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar did scream and say that it was a downright lie.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Chief Minister: I am sorry, I was just-

Mr Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar say "a downright lie". If he did, he must withdraw the expression. I am addressing the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. If he used the expression "a downright lie", he must withdraw it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, since you did not hear, obviously I could not have said it.

Mr Speaker: Order. It has been stated in passing by the Chief Minister that that expression was used. The hon. Member is his own judge as to whether or not he used it. If he says he did not use the expression, of course, that is the end of the matter. But if he says he did use the expression, he must withdraw it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Well, I withdraw it, Sir.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Sir. I did not mean to show disrespect to the Chair, but I brought that in just to throw back at the hon. Member the point that he himself said in moving his motion - when he made such allegations and when the S.P.A. stated that it was a stupid lie, and it is because of that refutation it was true - according to his reasoning - and therefore using his reasoning, what I said and what he said would lead one to believe that it must have been the truth. But leaving that apart, Sir, since you have so ruled, I must seek your indulgence and the indulgence of this House because I feel that the time has come when the eyes of the people of Singapore and the world should be properly opened to all the intrigues that have been going on and on and on since I became Chief Minister. In saying such things, Sir, I might damn myself, but I am not worried now. As Chief Minister I am just an individual. As Lim Yew Hock I am still an individual. But the country stands above all, and if it is going to be for the benefit of the country and, therefore, for the benefit of the people of this country, Lim Yew Hock and the Chief Minister can be trampled down, just as much as poor Chew Swee Kee is being trampled down when he is not here to defend himself. I would like to say, Sir, that the Government has been accused of taking very strong action against subversives, against comrades, or rather ex-comrades of the People's Action Party, and that has been thrown at me time and time again.

I was not dismayed because I was doing my duty. When I was asked many a time why it was necessary that there should have been so many consultations, discussions and friendly meetings with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, I just laughed it off and said: "Forget it, boys! That's nothing." Let the truth be told. The action that this Government took against subversives was an attempt to cleanse the P.A.P. for the good of the P.A.P. That was what I said. I did it because I felt that it would be in the best interests of the people of Singapore if there could be built up another force which is dedicated to serve the interests of the country, which might at that particular time not have awakened to the danger that the game that they were playing was a dangerous game.

I did so many things for the good of the country. I did so many things for the good of the P.A.P. after discussions with the P.A.P. Such is politics in Singapore today!

The Hon. the Financial Secretary, when replying to the question raised by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, said that it was not true that an inquiry had been stopped on the request of a Minister. There had been no inquiry. There was consideration given as to whether or not the funds that Mr Chew Swee Kee had received came within the Income Tax Ordinance, and whether or not such funds were subject to taxation. There was no inquiry. There was no choking-off of an inquiry. The hon. Member was not satisfied, because, according to him, no man other than he can speak the truth. The insinuation is that even the poor Financial Secretary did not speak the truth. Then again he said that we are afraid of a Commission of Inquiry because it will stir up dirt.

Sir, I have been in politics for years and years and years, and I am just as good a tactician as many others. It is my view that, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the appointment of such a Commission of Inquiry, the appointment will definitely lead to the disadvantage of the Party that is being examined. We are having a general election in three months' time, and the Commission cannot wind up its business so quickly. The investigations will have to be done in public. There will have to be almost a running commentary on what is going on inside the Commission of Inquiry. This will therefore lend extra fuel to the Opposition to hold us up to ridicule. That is the reason why we feel that it is not right that we should fall into the trap of having to hold a Commission of Inquiry to go into matters which we know for sure are not as alleged, although I must admit that there were circumstances surrounding such instances leading to the unfounded allegations being made.

I know very little about the source of these funds. But I can say this with all sincerity, that they are not from an American source at all. I do not like it. I can say this from what little I know. It is not from an American source. But before I go further, Sir, I would like to set the minds of the hon. Members of the Opposition at rest, since so much has been said.

I will accept the motion and appoint a Commission of Inquiry. We are not hiding anything. We would like to let the public know to what extent the allegations made at this late stage are true; to what extent they are just political manoeuverings.

Sir, the S.P.A. has been held up to ridicule by the previous speakers. It is to be expected that we cannot expect to be well spoken of by the Opposition. We try to do what we can, and what we believe is good for the country. We try to keep on building up a cohesive organisation, and we feel that we must not be afraid to be held up to ridicule by Members of the Opposition in our genuine attempt to find the best way to serve the country.

Sir, it is one of the common failings of democracy that, when we try to build up a democratic force, all the parts of that democratic force are not so united. Each force has its own way of thinking, its own line of action and its own beliefs. Therefore, there cannot be that ideal state of united action. Even though we could build up a very strong organisation, there would still be little sprinkiings here and there of so-called democrats who find that they cannot find a place in our organisation. But, Sir, if a political organisation is run on the lines of a Party which is Communistic, there is no need for all these headaches, no need for all these attempts to bring about closer understanding and closer unity. What the head says, goes. If it is white, it shall be white even though it may be black.

Sir, the hon. Member for Telok Ayer took this motion as an opportunity to smear the reputation of my Ministerial colleagues, and quite rightly, Sir, you ruled that the amendment which he proposed was not in order. Sir, any government, may it be the Government today or the next government - any government - will have to face such criticism and such attacks. But it is to be hoped that when attacks of this nature are being made there should be some sense of proportion, some sense of appreciation whether or not there is a basis for such allegations.

Sir, this is the first time in all my political life that I have to stand up in this Chamber and speak so solemnly and so sadly that a man's beliefs in another man's honesty and integrity can be shattered, just because of political necessity.

4.55 p.m.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, in this motion there are as far as I could understand two major parts. One to make sure whether the said fund was received and the second, is the source of the fund - the source from which the fund was received. But while answering, the Chief Minister had just admitted that he knew the fund was received. But he doubts the source to be from America. That is what I understand.

I think, Sir, that it is also important that we must find out the source - where the fund came from. I do not know I will be in order if I move an amendment. To get the general consent of this Assembly, I will give you the text of the amendment. May I read it? To add that:

"the report of the Commission be revealed before the next election of the Assembly."

Mr Speaker: Be revealed?

Mr Lazarous: Be revealed. That is, made public. This is important because before the next election, the voters must know exactly the truth of that allegation, whether the allegation is correct or incorrect. The voters will have a chance to cast their votes accordingly.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member give me the amendment in writing?

Mr Lazarous: Yes, Sir.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member move his amendment?

Mr Lazarous: Sir, I move,

At the end, to add, "and.that the Report of the Commission be revealed before the next general elections."

Sir, the reason for my moving this amendment is that, before the public are called upon to cast their votes for candidates contesting the next elections, they should know the truth about this serious allegation. Either the P.A.P. is making a false allegation or the S.P.A. is a stooge party of the Americans and is prepared to sell Singapore for a certain amount of money. I am not saying that the allegation is true or false. I only want the public to know whether there is any political Party which has sold itself to foreign interests, or there is a party which goes about telling scandalous lies about honest and upright men like our Chief Minister. Unless we decide that the results of that Inquiry be made public before the next Assembly elections, it is very unfair for the voters of Singapore to know for whom to vote under this cloud of suspicion. Since this request for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry is made in this House, it is appropriate that the results of the Inquiry should also be revealed in time before the next elections. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar is really earnest about his motion and does not want his request for a Commission of Inquiry to languish in obscurity after it is passed, I hope he will have no hesitation in supporting this amendment which seeks to give teeth to his motion.

I am certain that if the Hon. the Chief Minister has nothing to fear about this allegation and that there should be a speedy Inquiry into the serious allegation against the Hon. Minister for Education, which also involves his Party, he will readily support my amendment.

Mr Speaker: Any seconder? There is no seconder. The amendment falls. The original motion is before the House.

5.05 p.m.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House.

It is indeed sad, Sir, to hear the speech made by the Chief Minister when he said that he was actually tricked by the P.A.P. into agreeing that if the Hon. the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) were to resign, then it was not necessary to move the motion. He should realise by now, Sir, that during the December 1957 City Council elections, an unholy alliance was made between the P.A.P. and the Labour Front. He should know that they were tricked and that the P.A.P. cannot be trusted. He is talking about something good for the country; then let the people judge. Let the people judge this affair of $500,000. The Chief Minister said that this $500,000 is not from the Americans. Then from whom did he get it? This is a local affair. Singapore is our country. We were born here. We detest any interference from any country - foreign or otherwise.

Talking about cleansing the P.A.P. of subversives and the fight against subversives. If we are trying to sell ourselves to fight against the subversives for $500,000, then I strongly take objection to that. I am very glad, Sir, that so much dirty water has been pouring in and out of this House today.

I have made allegations myself in this House about corruption before on the question of the rice stockpile and things like that. Now, this is a motion introduced by the Member for Tanjong Pagar alleging that an amount of $500,000 was deposited with the First National City Bank of New York in the name of the Hon. Mr Chew Swee Kee and if we want to clear the doubts and not create any more misunderstanding in the minds of the people as to who are honest and dishonest, I strongly support the motion for a Commission of Inquiry.

5.08 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it distresses me to see the Chief Minister, in his agony as the final blows are landed, resorting to counter-smear to try and kill us by the only weapon he thinks he has left, and that is to tell a lie which he thinks-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already been over-ruled by alleging that there is a lie. He must not repeat it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very well, I withdraw it, but let me remind him that what the P.A.P. says publicly it honours publicly. [Interruption.] I am sorry for the interruption, Sir, It is a rather unusual message which I have received from a Member of this Assembly.

The position is briefly and simply this. First, let us get our facts straight. The issue arose over facts and the Inquiry will be on the facts: first, the $500,000 which should be investigated; second, the resignation of Mr Chew Swee Kee. I never asked Mr Chew Swee Kee to resign. Yesterday morning, as I was walking into this Chamber, the Chief Minister asked me, "If Chew Swee Kee resigns, will you go soft on him?" I said, "Well, it is not for me. I will ring up my Chairman." [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "I will ring up my Chairman," I said. The Member for Sembawang is here to bear witness and several members of my Central Executive Committee are also in the Gallery. We held a lunchtime meeting to decide the offer of appeasement made by the Chief Minister on behalf of Mr Chew Swee Kee. I told the Chief Minister before lunch that I was not in a position to decide, and that it was a matter for my Chairman. My Chairman decided that, although he was the person called a liar, he was not in a position to decide either, and we had a Central Executive Committee meeting at one o'clock yesterday which went on to a quarter-past two. I came back to this Chamber and told the Chief Minister, who was resting in the C.P.A. Room, what was agreed - that if Mr Chew resigned, then it would not be necessary for me to press for the Inquiry, because then the matter was admitted; but that it would be my duty, nevertheless, since the matter had gone that far, to state the facts. I told him that in clear and categorical terms. He was in the C.P.A. Room on the adjournment this morning when my Chairman. Dr Toh, Dr Goh Keng Swee, I and the Member for Sembawang told him clearly that that was the position.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that I came to see you yesterday to make sure that the position was as stated - that Mr Chew had resigned, because I told the Chief Minister, "If Mr Chew is here, I must pursue the matter to the hilt. If he is not here, I am prepared to state the facts, and if the facts are not challenged, then there is no point for a Commission of Inquiry, be, cause no crime has been committed but only a political blunder of the biggest magnitude has been made."

Sir, what I stated must have been too much for the Chief Minister. There was only one thing which he did not know, and that is that I had permission from the Hon. the former Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) to disclose that Mr Chew had told him he got U.S. $100,000 gold for the Party at the end of 1957. The Minister told me this only two weeks ago - I do not remember exactly when, but it was told me after I had tabled the motion. He is the only one honest guy left in the Government, and he told me, "Look, if it is any help, tell him."

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Sir, on a point of order. Is the hon. Member insinuating that all the others in the Government are dishonest?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member used the expression that "he was the only honest Member in the Government".

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not sat down yet. Now, if the hon. Member is insinuating that other Members of the Government are dishonest, then of course he is unparliamentary and he should withdraw that expression.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What I think I should have said was "known to be honest". All are honest, but he is known to be the honestest of them all!

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that will satisfy the Chair at all. I suggest the hon. Member withdraw that expression.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very well, Sir, it does not really matter as far as the public are concerned.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of order, Sir, I do take exception to the reply that he gave to the Chair's ruling, that it does not matter. I want a categorical reply and I would request him to name the other dishonest Ministers, and include me - outside the privilege-

Mr Speaker: Order, order. I think the point really is that if an hon. Member is asked to withdraw any unparliamentary word, he should withdraw it unqualifiedly. That is, I think, the point and that is quite a correct point. Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar will do so?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very well, Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. I am not interested in making allegations which I cannot substantiate. I do not know why the Minister for Commerce and Industry labours under this tremendous guilt complex. Nobody is accusing him of anything, not unless there is proof. I have no proof; so I am not accusing him. But as against Mr Chew my Chairman had categorical proof and therefore we went forward when we were called liars.

Sir, that is the position. My Chairman informed the Chief Minister this afternoon, in my presence and in the presence of the Member for Sembawang, that we had to state the facts, that his resignation does not mean that we have to withdraw all the charges because they are not necessary. They have to be stated categorically for the purpose of the record, and if the Hon. the Financial Secretary had looked at file G.S. 47909, he would know that what I stated is true.

Now as to the counter-smear. Sir, before I went to London, I thought, "Oh! The Chief Minister is the master plotter in this House." He plots and conspires with everybody, because he is a very cunning and a very wily man. He survived three phases- from the nominated phase into the first partially-elected, and on to the Rendel phase. Before we went to London, we carefully weighed the odds, whether by so doing we would subsequently be put in a fix by a possible smear that we sold out on our comrades. Sir, he wants at this late stage, when there is no way out, to smear me by saying, "Ah! I sold out my so-called comrades. I saw him and agreed the subversive clause with Lennox-Boyd at a private meeting." Let me tell him this: I never, with him, saw Lennox-Boyd at a private meeting. I knew, when we were inside the Conference Room - the Member for Serangoon was there together with the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing - that there were two choices left for me: either I broke up the Conference or I said, "Reject the subversive clause and come back." He remembered it, because if he wants the truth to be out, let me tell him this: that, in fact, they were all in favour of it and they tried to persuade me to accept it. I said, "Under no circumstances, because I was not in a position to accept any such thing and because my Party members were in gaol." Sir, whatever we do or do not do, there are certain guiding principles we always follow, and one of them is: never make a move which makes you a hostage of another man. And if I had accepted the clause, I would have been a hostage of chaps who were locked up. If I refused, I might become a hostage of the people with whom I was negotiating. Therefore I came back and, on the slightest challenge, I went and fought the polls. The Chief Minister had not the guts to face the public and defend -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has gone far enough. I think the hon. Member does recollect that I pulled the Chief Minister up when he was on that topic as being irrelevant and perhaps the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar should be satisfied with his reply up to now. Let us now be relevant.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: May I just, in passing, mention this: that what we do politically, we must do cleanly and honourably? We are not afraid of any inquiry being held, anywhere, any time, any place, on any one of us, because our hands are clean. First and last, we have financial and political integrity of purpose. They were undecided on what to do. I knew that they were plotting. Now it is too late to close the P.A.P. - that is their biggest regret. But they would have banged us and closed us down if they knew that we would go from strength to strength. If they knew that, despite the fact that they pulled away the active C.P. types from the Party, the Party could still have the momentum and the drive to succeed, they would have closed us down in August 1957. Sir, I have no illusions on this score. The Chief Minister is a wily man and I treated him on that basis. I say this. The trouble with the Chief Minister is that, although he is a wily man, some of his subordinates are not. One of his subordinates was Mr. de Cruz and he let it be known that it was the intention of the Labour Front to absorb the P.A.P. Therefore, if you lift up all the active C.P. types, then you absorb the democratic element. He knew that we were not C.P. types, and yet he carried out a consistent smear that we are Communists - and we kept on saying we are not Communists - deliberately to confuse the public. That was the reason why he could not close us, because not only did he know we are not Communists, but he also knew that we are prepared to work for a positive non-Communist line. Sir, throughout all the twists and turns, the position is now reached where I say that the Chief Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have just noticed that the hon. Mr Francis Thomas has crossed the Floor. That, in my view, is completely out of order. If he wishes to cross the Floor, he must do so at the beginning of a sitting. May I ask the hon. Member either to cross the Floor again and go back to his seat, or leave the Chamber?

Mr Francis Thomas: I am sorry, Sir, but it seemed to me necessary to do so, due to the circumstances. But I submit to your ruling.

Thereupon Mr Thomas left the Chamber.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, when we formed the People's Action Party in 1954, we were academic intellectuals, Left-wing types. We did not understand the machinations, the twists and turns of power. We learned that soon enough! Let me tell the Chief Minister this: one thing we never unlearn is that if you want to be a force, you have to be clean. Had his group been clean, we would have absorbed them. We knew they were not Communists, but we also knew that they were weak types, effete, feeble and susceptible to corruption.

Mr Speaker: Order. I know this is a rather heated debate, but if expressions of that nature are used loosely, they can be applied to honourable Members of this Assembly. I think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar should be a little more careful.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is a choice of expression. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to get involved in a tricky effeminate discussion on this subject. So far as I am concerned, the sands of time have run out on the Government. They have failed to absorb us.They have failed to block us. When the former Director of the Special Branch decided to scoot, then they really knew that their goose was cooked. I am not afraid at any time to be called a non-Communist. At this stage, for the Chief Minister to suggest that I was fighting the subversives is a very foolish thing, because that is contrary to the whole of his line. I will say this: the reason why the P.A.P. survives today is because we have held a consistent line. And the reason why the Labour Front collapsed and why the S.P.A. will collapse is because it has no basic beliefs, no basic line, nothing to sell; everybody in for what he could get out of it - loot.

Sir, I saw you yesterday and asked you what the position was with regard to my motion, since my Party had agreed that if Mr Chew resigned there was no point for a Commission of Inquiry. The Chief Minister found the facts too much because they told too heavily. He now says he is prepared to accept this motion. I had indicated to him that after the debate had taken place, I would withdraw my motion, because it was no longer necessary. He says he wants to carry on and accept the motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, you told me that if I wanted to withdraw it, I would have to get the consent of this Assembly. We keep our bargains. I still propose to withdraw, but there is nothing to stop the Government, on their own, if they want to clear themselves, from proceeding with a Commission of Inquiry. I therefore formally, Mr Speaker, Sir, ask your leave to withdraw my motion, since everybody knows why I am withdrawing it. I find it serves no useful purpose. We keep our bargains. We do not want to embarrass the whole of the Government as a result of investigating Mr Chew's affairs. The Chief Minister knows exactly how I feel about the matter. He knows that this is political dynamite. Once Mr Chew resigned, he admitted his guilt. If the Chief Minister wants to proceed with a Commission of Inquiry, he can do so; nothing can stop him. I have witnesses in the C.P.A. Room this afternoon to bear witness to what was agreed. Because of it, I formally ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr Speaker: Is it the pleasure of honourable Members that the motion should be withdrawn?

The Chief Minister: No.

Mr Speaker: I will put it to a vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed under the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance or otherwise to investigate and report on the facts regarding an account of about $500,000.00 in September 1958 in the First National City Bank of New York in the name of the Honourable Mr Chew Swee Kee and regarding the reasons why investigations in the matter for the purposes of Income Tax were not pursued by the officers responsible in the Income Tax Department.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister].

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 18th March, 1959.