RESIGNATION OF GOVERNMENT AND HOLDING OF GENERAL ELECTIONS (Call for)

11.40 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is positively the last performance, and I hope to set a more serious tone in this debate. Those who have come here hoping that we are going to pull the House down will be disappointed, because it is not our intention to pull the House down. But we are gravely alarmed that in their Gotterdammerung our Ministers have no quite the stability and judgment which we expect of them when the lights go out on this Government. It requires a great man to go down coolly, quietly and sanely. When one goes down, there is an almost irresistible impulse to pull everything down. We saw it in 1956. I did not much admire the tactics and techniques of the Chief Minister, but I have always thought him to be a tough little man who could take it. But I discovered that, when the time came and everybody rushed for the lifeboats, he, the Captain, also showed an inclination to get on the life-boat. Therefore, I thought it was imperative after the last sitting, that we should put the issue back on a sane and proper basis. He said in the course of that sitting many things. But none of them was more damaging to the Government and to the confidence which we have in fair and free elections than his one interjection - that he intends to play dirty politics. It is one thing for an ordinary Member of this House to say that he is going to resort to dirty methods and dirty politics. It is another thing when it comes from the Chief Minister, even though it was in a fit of anger, in a moment of madness. For that reason, we assessed the situation and we decided to table this motion. Two things can happen after this motion. We can go back to a sane and stable basis on which political issues are to be fought out; or we go off at a tangent, round the bend, and have a real, all-in wrestling bout with no holds barred for the next two months. The outcome of such a contest must mean a lot of unhappiness.

Up till now we are in control. The Chief Minister is in control of the apparatus of State to a certain extent, and we are in control of the direction in which the contest shall be pursued. But once certain things happen and all the brakes are released, then we go tearing round the bend. I do not want to see that happen. For that reason, I hope that, as a demonstration that he intends to, play the game according to the rules, and not go in for Siamese boxing, first, that he will retract his statement on dirty politics; secondly, that he will also withdraw what he said about a secret meeting which he said took place between him, me and the Secretary of State. As for dirty politics, he has indicated that that was said in a fit of anger. As for the other, he knows it is a falsehood. However, I want to put this issue plainly to him: that if it has to be all-in wrestling. then we will trade blow for blow to the very end. But we believe that he, despite everything, would not recklessly embark on such a course. For that reason, I wish to couch my language in the course of this debate in sober terms.

First, what has happened is past. But what will happen after this is another matter, because today is positively the last sitting of this Assembly, and in the next few days there will be no more Legislative Assembly where questions can be asked or issues debated. We were confident in November last year when we moved our motion that there should be elections after the 2nd April, 1959; that we should dissolve on or before the 2nd; and I did not force the issue about the Ministers who had been appointed, because they were Members of this Assembly, continuing in office without an Assembly. It is true that in constitutional practice, after Parliament is dissolved, Ministers continue on a caretaker basis until the elections are over. But when the Chief Minister said, "I am going to play the game in a dirty way", then I say we have cause to ask ourselves whether or not, wittingly or unwittingly, he may, in fact, allow dirty politics to be played in this election. I indicated earlier that, had we not known what was going on, the P.A.P. would not have survived. Right now we know exactly what is going on, and we are, frankly speaking, disturbed that when the time comes for the final round of the contest men who should make momentous decisions only after careful reflection and consideration are acting in fits of pique and anger.

On Monday there was wild talk that the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing was going to dissolve the City Council, because he was angry that some minutes which he had demanded had not been sent to him. Yes. He told the Press, but he told them to keep it quiet and confidential. One reporter did not, much to the chagrin of the reporter of the other paper who discovered he had been scooped the next day. But even this paper did not disclose the full extent of this mad talk. I do not believe even now that the Minister, on sober reflection, would wish to take such a momentous decision so light-heartedly. Even if he did, it is doubtful whether his other Ministers would acquiesce in that decision. Even if they did, it is doubtful whether the ultimate official responsible, namely, the Governor, will be a party to it. Therefore, if and when that happens, we must assume that all have acquiesced in that, and have calculated the consequences. What are the consequences? If nothing happens between now and Nomination Day and between Nomination Day and polling day, then I say the odds have already been settled. But what I fear is that people in moments of impending defeat act like desperadoes. They might dissolve the City Council in the hope that there might be some civil commotion which will give them a magnificent excuse why votes should not be cast and the elections postponed. All this becomes very dangerous and unpleasant, because, technically speaking, it is no breach of the constitution for this Government to carry on until the 2nd of July, three months from the date of compulsory automatic dissolution of this Assembly, namely, the 2nd of April, bringing it to the 2nd of July.

In November, when I moved my motion, we were confident that, whatever their shortcomings, the Government and the Ministers would play according to the rules of the game. Frankly, now I am not so sure, not because we think that we would lose if it is not played according to the rules of the game. However the game is played, I believe the result is the same. But if the game is played the dirty way, then the aftermath is unpleasant. I do not, for one moment, suggest that there are going to be trials as what happened in Cuba or in Baghdad, but if people get injured - as they were injured in Kallang; two of my Party members were stabbed - well, if they were killed in outlying areas, then a lot of unpleasantness must follow. And we do not want Castro trials here.

I therefore ask the Chief Minister whether he would not seriously consider that, in view of the public alarm which he has caused by what he said at the last sitting, he and his Ministers should vacate their offices during the period of the elections. Sir, let us be honest and realistic about it. We know that the Ministers are hard-working men, but we also know that the administration will carry on exactly the same without them. The Chief Minister is looking after three portfolios - Chief Minister, Minister for Labour and Welfare, and Minister for Education. I do not think the schools have suffered as a result of the loss of the former Minister for Education. Another Minister was well enough to attend a banquet for the Duke of Edinburgh but not well enough to attend a sitting of the Assembly. He recovered well enough to issue statements to the newspapers, but not well enough to attend the final sitting of this Assembly. Nobody is in any doubt that, because of the heavy stresses and strains on his nervous system over the last four years, it would be unkind to expect him to do much work now. Therefore, I would suggest that if not much work anyway can be expected before Nomination Day, certainly no work at all is possible after Nomination Day when electioneering proper begins.

We have no objection to the Minister taking leave with full pay prior to retirement.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Very generous!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: There is the illustrious example of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. He has openly acknowledged that he wanted to go campaigning for his Party. He has taken leave and will retire from his post as Prime Minister. We have no objections to our Ministers doing likewise in order that they will devote their undivided care and attention to the election. If that is not possible, then I say, much as I detest having to say it, that the driving instructor should put the brakes on, because the pupil has not learned in four years and it is reckless to allow him to career along the public highways.

I say point-blank that had our survival as a Party and as a movement depended on the wisdom and the judgment of our illiterate Ministers alone, we might not be here today to make this plea for clean and fair elections. I would say, having decided to allow us to continue right up till now, it is the duty of the driving instructor to see that the driving is done according to the Highway Code.

Sir, if the Ministers continue - I do not say that they themselves will indulge in any illegal or unlawful activities - there are bound to be cases of minor misuse, and sometimes major misuse of power. I give a simple illustration. The Chief Minister at the Kallang by-election was moving in and out of the polling stations with ease to supervise and see how the polling was going on. I was the election agent of my candidate and I could not enter the polling stations. That is just a minor instance. I do not suggest that he went in and coerced anybody to vote for his side. But I did see him enter the polling stations, something which I could not do, even as an election agent. I happened to see it, Sir. Election agents were not allowed to enter. I was an election agent, too, and I was not allowed to enter. We all know that, however impartial police officers are, if Ministers turn up at the police station on behalf of the people in the lock-up, they are bound to be polite, because it is their duty to be polite. I am not suggesting that the Ministers will do it, but I am seriously suggesting that some of the characters to be found in not too distant association with some Ministers are quite capable of doing these things.

Therefore, I say nothing is lost if they publicly divest themselves of their power, positions and their prestige and influence by vacating their office until polling day.

Sir, I would remind the Chief Minister about this. He has indicated to me that he is prepared to set up a liaison committee as a guarantee of fair play. The Chief Secretary shall be the Chairman of that committee, and each Party in this Assembly shall have one representative with direct access to the Chief Secretary on all complaints of partiality by the police.

If he is prepared to go thus far; if he is prepared to acknowledge that, in fact, there is concern because of his intended or unintended remarks, then I say, let us publicly take a position which is not only unassailable but appears manifestly to be unassailable. If they vacate their office or give us an undertaking today that they will take leave after Nomination Day, then I am quite prepared to accept that. But if they say, "No, although we cannot do anything, any useful work, no momentous decisions to be taken other than those which the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, talked to the Press about, we still must -"

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): On a point of information, Sir-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew resumed his seat.

Dato Abdul Hamid: I would like to ask the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar to which Press I talked about the suspension of the City Council?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: To the Straits Times and the Singapore Standard.

Dato Abdul Hamid rose-

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Dato Abdul Hamid: Point of clarification, Sir. That is a deliberate lie.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Hon. Minister meant that the Member for Tanjong Pagar was telling a deliberate lie, or whether the Straits Times or Singapore Standard was telling lies. If it is the latter, of course, he is in order, but if it is the former, he is out of order.

Dato Abdul Hamid: It could be both, and it could be only the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister, of course, is completely out of order. He knows he is out of order. This is the last sitting, I might remind the Minister, and perhaps he would like to withdraw that expression.

Dato Abdul Hamid: As you please, Sir, I withdraw.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am not in the least perturbed, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing thinks that it is the reporter or I that has misconstrued him. But I am reassured that, at a public forum, on a public occasion, he is sufficiently conscious of the moral rights and wrongs of the case to say it was a lie if it was said. That is enough. In other words, he knows that it is (1) an act fraught with danger; (2) despicable; (3) not to be embarked upon recklessly.

Dato Abdul Hamid rose-

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dato Abdul Hamid: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew resumed his seat.

Dato Abdul Hamid: I was only asking the Member for Tanjong Pagar how he got the information when he said that I did say such and such a thing to two leading newspapers in Singapore. But at the same time, Sir, I did not give any indication to him, or to this Assembly, or to you, Sir, that I will not take any action in any matter in connection with the City Council.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: If ever I need justification for my motion, this is it. In other words, when the shilly-shallying is over, a responsible Minister of this Government is now saying, yes, he is contemplating a highly hazardous piece of political chicanery. Sir,

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the heat is on! I think the word "chicanery" in that sense is unparliamentary and I think the hon. Member should withdraw that word.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, may I, with your leave, withdraw that and substitute the word "adventure"?

Sir, I can assure this House that it is our firm and determined resolve to play this game peacefully and clean. We have nothing to lose by doing anything else. The odds are with us, and we are confident that if we play the cards down to the last one, the score will be on our side.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sure?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Whether the City Council be scrapped or not is a matter of indifference to us. We shall see that there are no civil commotions and we shall see that there are elections, unless the Governor is to be proved a liar when he said, in reply to a message from this Assembly, and an Address from this Assembly, that there will be elections - polling will take place 60 days from the date of dissolution. That is what is most important. If polling does take place 60 days from the date of dissolution, be it tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or at the end of this week, then we are satisfied. But if it does not, and there is unpleasant gossip that perhaps it might not be so because conditions may not permit it, then I say it is just sheer folly, because if they wanted to prevent us from winning they should have done it earlier - in 1956. 1957 - but not after 1958 and into 1959, for the tide has run out and the sands are glittering in the gleaming sun that is to rise.

I ask the Chief Minister frankly to meet my point. All I really want - and if what he says can be taken at face value, he also wants - are clean and fair elections. I say I do not care what form of guarantee it takes. If we are satisfied that there will be elections and they will be fair and clean, we shall rest content.

Sir, I beg to move,

That, in view of the public disgust and loss of public confidence in the Government as a result of recent disclosures. This Assembly calls for the immediate resignation of the Government and the holding of General Elections.

12.09 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion, and reserve my right to speak later.

Question proposed.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: May I, Sir, with respect, suggest that the House suspend until half-past two?

Mr Speaker: Is that the pleasure of hon. Members? Is there no dissenting voice?

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: It seems to be the general desire of the House to suspend. I therefore suspend. I shall take this Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, my first reaction on receiving this motion in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar was this. I asked myself what was the purpose of the Member for Tanjong Pagar in moving this motion at this juncture? I tried to analyse the reasons, like a surgeon undertaking a post-mortem. What makes the Member for Tanjong Pagar at this juncture want to shorten the life of the Government when it has got a few more days to go? We know that Government is committed to hold the elections - if I am wrong, I hope the Chief Minister will correct me - on 31st May. Sir, I came to the conclusion that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is again seeking to turn public interest away from a matter which is concerned with the national movement of our country. Sir, the man-in-the-street in every nook and corner of Singapore knows too well that the $500,000 story is already a foregone conclusion. Sir, the public seem to have lost interest in the disclosure of the $500,000 gift, but the general topic after the disclosure of 4th March is whether it is true or false about the meeting on the famous subversive clause 30 which bars the ex-comrades of the P.A.P. from taking part in the elections. Sir, I regret that the ex-Member for Cairnhill is not with us today. The accusation of double-crossing was actually raised by him. Sir, I quote from Hansard, Volume 2, No. 24, column 1736. The ex-Member for Cairnhill said:

"The P.A.P., it is notorious, is extremely anxious to deprive its left wing of the very people whom it pretends to befriend. We kiss Devan Nair, we kiss Devan Nair on both cheeks, and wait for Lennox-Boyd to hang him from the back!"

Sir, I am sure hon. Members can recollect the reply from the Member for Tanjong Pagar. At column 1738 of Hansard, Volume 2, No. 24, he said:

"I think he understands that when serious charges of double-crossing, charges that we have cheated the people, most of the people, most of the time..."

That was the answer to the accusation of the ex-Member for Cairnhill, Sir.

Sir, to me the purpose of the motion in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar is mainly to switch public notice from the famous by-election. Sir, if a smear campaign is going on, you can even say that the Member for Changi receives money from American capitalists and Chinese Communists and that he is a political bankrupt! Maybe this is the only time for me to move an amendment to the motion to read:

"That, in view of the public disgust and loss of public confidence in the Member for Tanjong Pagar as a result of recent disclosures, this Assembly calls for the immediate resignation of the Member for Tanjong Pagar."

But, Sir, I know that you will rule out this amendment and therefore it is useless for me to seek political capital at the expense of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. For the sake of national unity, I do not intend to move a motion censuring the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Today, the people of this country are not interested in whether the Member for Havelock or the Member for Tanjong Pagar will become the Prime Minister. What the people are interested in is when can they really achieve their national aspirations and 100 per cent independence.

Sir, how many of us here are honestly interested in international affairs? A global war can develop in May if the Berlin crisis cannot be solved. How many hon. Members here are really concerned with our economic position which is threatening to collapse? Unemployment is increasing. Factories are closing down one by one and yet we find the Member for Tanjong Pagar, the leader of a well organised political party, leisurely playing such dirty politics by bringing up this motion to censure the Government and to demand its resignation.

I cannot help but support the comment of the Chairman of the Workers Party that if this motion were two years earlier, the situation would have been entirely different. Sir, unfortunately, two years ago, the relationship between the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Chief Minister was too good. They went hand in hand to bring back the famous clause 30, and if I were seeking more political capital, I would also censure the Member for Havelock who was also connected with the famous clause 30. But, Sir, I do not wish to do that. For the last four years, I learned nothing from the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He said:

"..one thing we never unlearn is that if you want to be a force, you have to be clean."

That is from Hansard, Volume 3, No. 24, column 2177, but now I begin to doubt the cleanliness of the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he double-crossed in respect of the famous clause 30.

So, Sir, it is the duty of the Member for Tanjong Pagar to prove how clean he is, how the disclosure came before the eyes of the public; because, Sir, I have gone through the Hansard of the 3rd and 4th March. I have tried to trace the reason why the mover of this motion moved it, yet I only found in Volume 3, No. 24. column 2178:

"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."

Again the relationship between the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar is still good. They know exactly. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said only a few days ago that he had no intention of embarrassing the whole of the Government as a result of the investigation - that means the disclosure.

Furthermore, Sir, in the Hansard, how many times did he repeat that the disclosure is no crime, no act of illegality, and that there was no suggestion of a crime having been committed? Yet we have this motion before us. This morning when the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar moved a motion, maybe he did not intend to link this motion with the $500,000 disclosure. What he is interested in is what the Chief Minister has said, "If he plays dirty, I will play dirty in the coming elections." If that is the case, Sir, what is the extent of dirt in our politics? The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said that it is not a fact, yet he seems to accept the challenge - "If you play dirty, I also know how to play dirty." Since the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar is so confident in accepting the challenge of "dirty politics" that is coming into this Assembly, therefore the purpose of this motion is part of dirty politics.

Since dirty politics is coming into being, I think it is best for me to give some truth about what has been going on during the last four years. The national aspiration of this country has from time to time been quoted by various political leaders. In May 1956, Sir, - I hope you can remember it - on the day when the constitutional talks broke down, I had an unexpected call that very midnight from the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and the hon. Member for Bukit Timah. They kindly offered to call a Press conference for me to denounce the Lib-Soc. I can still remember the exact words of my reply. I said, "It is very kind of you to make such an arrangement. My English is no handicap to me since I know very little of what has happened in London. But please allow me, after the Press conference, to disclose that this Press conference was actually arranged by you." Sir, of course, this Press conference never materialised. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and the hon. Member for Bukit Timah knew that I have the prestige of the Singapore delegation; I have the national unity of the people of Singapore at heart. And I refused such a kind offer. If I would kill Lib-Soc, I would be killing it in Singapore, but never in London. Sir, that is part of dirty politics. I have another example, Sir - citizenship which was also denied, as given in the Hansard of 27th April, 1957. We know that citizenship was one of the items in the Agreement, but I never expected that the idea was happily supported by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar to oppose this item's inclusion in the agenda.

Mr Speaker: Order. The motion is moved,".. . in view of the public disgust and loss of public confidence in the Government as a result of recent disclosures". The word "recent", I take it, is recent - just before the sitting today - and it looks as though the hon. Member for Changi is making it a little more recent. I suggest that he is going a bit too far from the motion, and I ask him to try and keep as close as possible to the terms of the motion.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, it seems that the 1956 talks are rather far from this motion. I will quote a recent one - I do not know how recent you will consider it - the case of Lim Ching Joo, a motion moved by the hon. Member for Queenstown charging the Special Branch with cruelty and torture. I was supposed to have seconded the motion. I was informed by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that the Chief Minister said that Lim Ching Joo's wounds were self-inflicted - a part of Communist tactics to embarrass the Government. Sir, all these I treated as strictly confidential. It is not our duty really to break the rule which politicians usually think of. But, nevertheless, in Singapore today politics is not personal, and the frustration and disappointment is widespread.

Let me go back to the famous clause about the subversive elements. The Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew fit Poh gave headline news about the French News Agency's story that "the Colonial Office spokesman denies the meeting took place." Therefore, the P.A.P. spokesman issued a statement, "We are very pleased with such a denial from the spokesman of the Colonial Office." Sir, why should the Colonial Office choose such a crucial moment to give our Hon. the Chief Minister a slap, "He is telling lies!", and the Chief Minister is hurt? Sir, to me the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the $500,000 is not as important as the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry into the leakage from the Income Tax Department. But still more important than this is the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into this "dirty" subversive clause. This is most important. The people of Singapore are anxious to know how dirty politics is, and how long politics has been double-crossing and manoeuvring in this country. "We are loyal! We are proud of our comrades in Changi Prison!" Sir, these are merely crocodile tears, and are not from human beings! I have a file here; a "Crocodile" brand file!

Therefore, I sincerely and humbly demand the withdrawal of this motion because, if I may be a little rude, Sir, it is not only bad and selfish of those who make it a political stunt, but the important thing is that they are seeking to destroy our national unity, thereby deepening the rift - the differences - among our people - between the rich and the poor, the Malays and the Chinese. Do they know that there might be an open clash as a result of twisting the charge that the U.M.N.O., which merely accused the P.A.P., are anti-Chinese? We know the P.A.P. are seeking the support of our Malay brothers - once you wear a songkok, then you are a Malay - to support the P.P.S.O. (Preservation of Public Security Ordinance). Woe to the Federation of Malaya! Sir, all these make me think that the motive of the mover of this motion is most deplorable. They are only seeking personal glorification and Party interests, and not for the welfare or the interests of the people of Singapore or even for a Greater Malaya as a whole.

My second reason for demanding the withdrawal of this motion is this. Do not create a bad precedent in the coming election campaign through this motion which is irresponsible, unfounded, and unnecessary. The life of the Assembly runs for only a few more days. The date of the general elections has been agreed unofficially. And yet we have this motion! I quote one example. I attended one election rally of the P.A.P. and I heard the speech of one P.A.P. speaker, Mr Yong Nyuk Lin, the General Manager of the Overseas Assurance Company Limited. He accused the S.P.A. of being supported by capitalists from abroad and locally. What is wrong with the S.P.A. boxing supported by capitalists? As the hon. Member said, "Mr Chew Swee Kee should probably have said, 'I have got the money. So what?'" It is the same thing, Sir, who is Mr Yong? This may only be a coincidence. They all come from a multi-millionaire banker's family. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and Mr Yong Nyuk Lin are married to the same daughter - oh, no, no, different daughter-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must from now on confine himself to the motion. He has kept wandering away ad lib, and I have given him enough rope. I suggest that he should now come back to the motion.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, May I apologise? I only wanted to quote an example of the dangers if we continue to conduct our political activities or political campaigns to such an extent. As a result of the nature and motive of this motion, I am forced to mention that it is wonderful that a multi-millionaire banker can produce two brilliant sons-in-law!

My third reason for demanding the withdrawal of the motion is this. The P.A.P. have been boasting, especially the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, from time to time that they are genuinely supported by the masses. Therefore, they are confident they will come into power and the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will be Prime Minister, as we have heard this morning. It is my business to know income tax. Let me take this opportunity to assess how genuinely and how popularly the P.A.P. are really supported by the masses. They called for a boycott of the welcome to the Duke of Edinburgh, which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar thought would be fully supported and would succeed. He has every confidence in moving this motion to request the Government to resign, quickly and much earlier, so that he can become Prime Minister. Sir, I tell you it is not that simple. The public are not so simple as they were a few years back. The call for a boycott of the welcome to His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh, was a failure. They should have learnt this lesson and thought over why the boycott was a failure. It is because we have failed to bring about national unity. It is not a matter of who can become the Prime Minister. We really must succeed in bringing all our people to realise one aim - to achieve our national aspiration - but not merely to ask this Government to resign quickly so that someone can step in to become the Prime Minister. The whole motive of the motion looks like that.

Sir, if the call to boycott the Duke of Edinburgh could be supported by all political Parties in Singapore in order to challenge the symbol of colonial power, then what was the result? Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar can never see that. National unity and national interests are more important than personal glorification and Party popularity.

Sir, in conclusion, I wish the Member for Tanjong Pagar can accept my humble advice in the interest of the people and for the unity of this country, and withdraw the motion. If not - I beg your indulgence, Sir - maybe I am too small to issue a challenge to the almighty hero of Tanjong Pagar - but let me extend my humble invitation to him to come to Changi constituency to answer the accusations which I put forward today in this House. Let me then answer him in public. Let me answer him without any protection or privilege. Let me repeat all the allegations, all the accusations, which for years I have levelled at him, in front of the public, in front of the people of Changi. Sir, I consider this motion selfish and unnecessary. I also have a strong doubt as to the integrity and sincerity of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in the national struggle. I now wish to withdraw the remarks which I made about the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. In Hansard, Volume 2, No. 24, column 1780 - this is my only chance to withdraw this remark - "this Assembly could lose hundreds of Lim Cher Khengs but could not afford to lose the Member for Tanjong Pagar...". Sir, I wish, with your permission, to substitute now, "that this Assembly could lose hundreds of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar but could not afford to lose the Member for Changi."