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

Debate resumed.

3.05 p.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that public confidence has been shaken because of recent disclosures, and that there has been public disgust at the sorry state of Singapore politics. But the People's Action Party cannot set itself up on a pinnacle as if it had not contributed to this feeling of disgust. However, it is not my desire to add to the mud-slinging at recent sittings of this House. What we want to know is this. What proposals has the Chief Minister got by which his Party and all political Parties, inside and outside this House, can together ensure, as far as we possibly can, individually and collectively, that we shall have clean elections, quite apart from the provisions of the Ordinance recently passed in this House? We on this side of the House are ready to make our contribution, but the initiative and responsibility at this moment lie with the Chief Minister and his Government. Surely this is the kernel of this debate and the sooner it is satisfactorily answered perhaps the better for the dignity of this House, both now and in the future.

3.07 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech this morning, the Member for Tanjong Pagar tried his best to pin me down to saying that I would not embark on an adventure that would dispense with the City Council. He even alleged, very wrongly though, that I had indicated to some reporters of the Straits Times and of the Singapore Standard that I would do so. Well, Sir, to put matters in their proper perspective, I never said any such thing to any reporter, be it the Singapore Standard or the Straits Times, or for that matter, even Moscow's Pravda. But at the same time, Sir, I will not be drawn into the P.A.P. trap into tying my hands vis-a-vis the City Council so long as I am the Minister concerned. It is my duty to the people of Singapore to see that the City Council is run properly and for the good of its inhabitants, and not for any political Party or its stooges. I will not shirk my responsibilities.

In view of the cumulative damaging effect of the various actions of the present City Council since its inception in December 1957, and in view of the many representations which have been made to me from time to time, not only from the general public but also from many of the City Councillors themselves and from the City Council Staff Unions, I have come to the conclusion that the City administration in the hands of the present Councillors has reached the point where the public interest demands serious consideration by me as to whether I should intervene or not. I therefore intend to take all such Steps should I deem it necessary in the public interest, irrespective of whether the People's Action Party accuses me of doing so for political ends or not. As far as the People's Action Party is concerned, anything we on this side of the Bench do has a political bias - not so with them though, even when they institute a People's Court and the Gestapo system in the City Council.

Now, Sir, coming to the motion before the House. Why has the leader of the People's Action Party brought it up at this late stage of this Assembly's life? Is it because he really and honestly fears that this Government would play dirty politics? Does he sincerely and honestly believe or think that we would do so? I will tell you why, Sir. The reason is this. The longer the elections are delayed, even for a week, mind you, the worse it would be for the People's Action Party. They know this, and the leader of the People's Action Party knows it as well as I do. We all know that the stock of the People's Action Party has fallen in the market. The people no longer believe in them, and that applies to everyone, from the rich towkay right down to the humble hawker.

The cuddling of the hawkers by the People's Action Party cannot deceive them. The hawker is no fool. He knows this, he can think, and he also realises that all this P.A.P. talk about educating the hawkers prior to elections could only end up in the jailing of the hawkers after the elections. Yes, Mr Speaker. They know what will happen should the P.A.P. win the elections.

Furthermore, Sir, the direct attack of U.M.N.O. on the People's Action Party for their non-Communist stand has not helped them at all.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hate interrupting the Hon. Minister, but he appears to be making a speech which ought to be made on a different occasion. We are now, of course, debating a motion that the Government should resign. We are not debating relations between U.M.N.O. and P.A.P.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for your guidance. But at the same time I think this is one of the reasons why the P.A.P. has put in such a motion before the Assembly, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from just mentioning in passing these matters, but only very briefly. But he cannot develop them.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Thank you, Sir. Well, Sir, it is only after my Party's all-out exposure of the People's Action Party that the people of Singapore are beginning to realise that in the situation in which Malaya is in today, the word "non-Communist" is synonymous with pro-Communist, and to me, Sir, a non-Communist is more dangerous than a full-blooded Communist.

All these factors, Sir, have compelled the People's Action Party to demand an immediate election of the resignation of the Government. Any further delay would naturally mean loss of votes to them. It is good to hear the leader of the People's Action Party say that the P.A.P. will not start any riots or strikes during the forthcoming election campaign even if the City Council is suspended. In fact, Sir, only the other day at a mass meeting, the Member for Tanjong Pagar warned his supporters not to involve themselves in any such monstrous occupation. In October 1956, the same warning was given over and over again by the same honourable gentleman. Then what happened? We had our riots and we had our strikes. I do not know, Sir, whether today's assurance by the People's Action Party leader was a coincidence. But somehow to me it rings a bell somewhere.

Finally, Sir, let me warn the P.A.P. or someone who know them very well - we call them party atas pagar (it is a Malay term) - the Party on this side of the House will fight the elections clean. We know the People's Action Party tactics and we also know how able they are and how vicious they can be if it means a life and death struggle for them. Sacrificing their own comrades means nothing to them. What more sacrificing their opponents? Let me warn them again, Sir. Play your cards clean.

Yes, Sir, the public is disgusted. The public has lost confidence, but not in this Government. The public is disgusted and has lost confidence in the People's Action Party.

3.18 p.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion reads,

"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."

What have the recent disclosures got to do with the present Government, the S.P.A., I do not know. If there is any money received, it is not by this Government. It was received by the Labour Front Government. I, as a member of the S.P.A., know that the S.P.A. Government had nothing at all to do with using money from an outside source.

It was disclosed in this House by the hon. Mr Francis Thomas that during the elections of 1957, when the Labour Front had the unholy alliance with the P.A.P., money was received at that time, but no one revealed the secret. For all you know, Sir, the P.A.P. may have had a share in it themselves, and that is why nothing was said. As far as I know, and as a member I know nothing and it has not come to my knowledge that this Government has received money from outside. Perhaps the P.A.P. and the Labour Front know very well that since the S.P.A. are not receiving money from outside, it is no use sticking with them. They cannot get anything so it might be just as well for them to reveal the secret for their own gain. This is dirty politics at its very worst. I say that the motion is brought up only to wash dirty linen for their own gain and this Government has got nothing to do with it whatsoever.

3.20 p.m.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to make reference to one part of the speech made by the Member for Changi. He mentioned that because the Colonial Office had denied the statement made by the Chief Minister, the leaders of the P.A.P. had applauded and patted themselves on their backs. But, Sir, having studied history for some time - and I am still interested in history, especially diplomatic history - I think I can tell you, Sir, that even if there had been a conference between the three of them-the Chief Minister, the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Colonial Secretary, Mr Lennox-Boyd - the Colonial Office would have no such record. As far as I know, official records do not put down such things that happened. Official records in the Colonial Office would not have recorded this.

Some of us here believe what the Chief Minister said and some of us know, Sir, that there can be no official record in the Colonial Office. So the statement from the Colonial Office in London is neither here nor there.

Now, coming to the motion, Sir, "recent disclosures" was mentioned. Without going very far back - only the last sitting on the 4th of March - four important things were disclosed. First, the $500,000; second, the conveyance of confidential information from Mr Francis Thomas to the Secretary-General of the P.A.P.; third, the subversive clause; and fourth, the Income Tax file.

Those four disclosures, Sir, have indeed shaken some of our confidence, not in the Government but in some politicians. Some had stooped so low as to cause disclosure of a secret file from the Income Tax Department. One had stooped so low as to convey confidence put in him to a Party in the Opposition.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems a bit strange, of course, that the Deputy Speaker should be called to order. But I think the Deputy Speaker must know that certain of his remarks have already been over-ruled, directly if not indirectly, and he ought not to have passed those remarks. Will he please withdraw them?

Mr R. C. H. Lim: I doubly apologise, Sir, I will not comment any more on these disclosures. But I would like to ask - what is the meaning of the word "public" in this motion? It is not the "public" of Singapore. The word "public" used in this motion must mean the P.A.P. - the P.A.P. without Marcus who has just resigned. The disgust is with the P.A.P. and the loss of confidence also is with the P.A.P.

Sir, I would like to close by reminding this House, and the whole of Singapore, of the warning given by the Member for Queenstown - to ask the people to vote not for the Party that has not done the right thing, not for the man that has not done the right thing, but to vote for the Party which is working in the interests of Singapore as a whole.

3.24 p.m.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, so much breath and time have been wasted. What is the idea? There is going to be an inquiry into the $500,000 matter. There is going to be an inquiry into the leakage of income tax information. Sir, I think it is premature to say that the people of Singapore are disgusted and have lost confidence in the Government.

3.25 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, if you dangle a high-powered motorcycle in front of a youngster who has used a push-bike, you will see the reaction on his face. He just cannot contain himself. He wants to get on that motorcycle and make use of the power at his disposal. That, today, is exactly the position which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar is in. He just cannot wait. He wants to become Prime Minister as quickly as possible.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar often talks and behaves in this House and outside as if he is the equal of Nehru or Mao Tze-tung or any of the world leaders.

We often, Sir, in this House talk of Singapore as a country. Maybe we are setting our sights too high. Let us get down to earth and realise what we really are. A tiny speck of an island with great nations all around us. Do not let us fool ourselves into imagining for one moment that we are a country. We are not a country. Do not let us fool ourselves into imagining that our Prime Minister in the next Government can ever be the equal of even the smallest of the Prime Ministers of the big countries.

What do we aspire to? What is our future? We went to London not to ask for independence, because we recognised that Singapore as a sovereign independent nation is just nonsense. We recognise that at best our future lies in integration with the Federation of Malaya, and when we reach that goal, we just become a tiny portion of the mainland of Malaya. There will be no more nonsense about having a Prime Minister in Singapore and a Cabinet. We realise that Singapore has not the wherewithal to become a sovereign independent nation. We realise that we can never be a country by itself. Then why should our politicians put on airs? Why should they not get on with their real business of looking after the community's interests? It is a community, not a nation or country, though I have been guilty of using that word often in excited debates.

Sir, coming to the getting on with the business of governing and enhancing the interests of the people, how much contribution to that have the Member for Tanjong Pagar and his Party made in the last four years? The Member for Tanjong Pagar and his Party feel that their elected representatives are there for political purposes only. They do not realise that the people elect representatives to further the interests of the people in all fields - educational, medical, and especially in the economic field. Until the last three or four months, I had been responsible in this House for goading the Member for Tanjong Pagar into speaking his mind on economic matters. What does he feel about measures that the Government adopts for the bettering of the economy? Absolutely-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: If he will attend the mass rally of the People's Action Party on Sunday at the 5� m.s. Serangoon, he will have a first-hand report of the economic policy of the Party.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: That I am sure I will have, Sir, at a late stage, when the elections are near. But when a man is elected to the Assembly, where the economic policy of the island is being debated, whether he is in the Government or in the Opposition, his constituents expect him to participate in it, to give his views, to contribute to the economic betterment of the whole. But so far, Sir, the P.A.P.'s representatives in this House have kept aloof. I do not know why they have kept aloof. Perhaps it is because they have no economic policy or perhaps they have no inclination to participate in mundane matters concerning the daily lives of the people. They set their sights only on political power. What the people expect is for them to participate in those discussions which contribute to the causes which make Singapore tick today.

Sir, they seem to think that they are elected only for a political purpose. Now what could that political purpose be? Could it be the spread of Communism? The Member for Tanjong Pagar has time and again said that he is a non-Communist and that his Party - the remnants after August 1957 - is non-Communist. I am inclined to believe him personally, Sir, that he and certain members of his Party are non-Communist. Then, Sir, could the political purpose be a nationalist purpose in the context of Singapore which is not a nation? Let us call it "nationalist" for the sake of using that word. In that case, what does nationalism demand? It demands a bettering of the economy of the country. It demands looking after the interest of the population. But they have not taken part in any of the debates until recently on any of those subjects. Either the Member has been out of the House or he has just sat quietly through. Even during the Budget sittings, or when policy speeches are made by the Government for the coming year, the hon. Member has not talked constructively on any of these subjects.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister would like to assist the Chair by relating his remarks to the motion?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Certainly, Sir. My remarks are intended to show that there is a bad intention behind the motion moved by the hon. Member.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is perfectly in order, if the hon. Member will just, in passing, mention all these matters. He seems to be going much too deeply into these matters for the purposes of this motion.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I bow to your ruling, Sir. My understanding of this motion is that this is a motion of censure on the Government at this late stage, and a motion of censure on the Government moved by an Opposition political Party can only have a political motive and, therefore, in defending the Government, if I can expose the motive of the Opposition political Party, I will have succeeded in having a fair debate on the motion and justifying why the motion should be thrown out.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not, of course, stopping the Minister from doing just exactly what he seeks to do. What I am stopping the Minister from doing is going too much into detail. In other words, he is debating the conduct of the Member for Tanjong Pagar in this House, which is wrong, of course.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Thank you, Sir, I have said that nationalism then cannot be a motive, because I have given the reasons when you stopped me, Sir. What then can be the real political purpose that they have in mind? Have they designs on the Federation of Malaya as a whole and not just the tiny island of Singapore? If that is so, I think, in political fairness, they should come out strongly and say, "We intend not to govern Singapore but to govern the whole of Malaya." Beyond that, Sir, I cannot think what other political purpose they could have. Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar may, in his reply, enlighten me and the public of Singapore so that we will know exactly where we stand with the P.A.P., and perhaps, if his motives are laudable, I am sure that many people will then support him.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You want to join too?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Not until I know what the P.A.P. stands for. At the moment, all that the people know is that the P.A.P. goes round in circles with lightning enmeshed in it, but the P.A.P. has never come out openly with what its ultimate political aim is.

Sir, I sincerely believe that this motion is intended to make political capital and the intention of the hon. Member at the beginning was to make political capital - to hit the nails into the coffin, so to speak, after he had exposed the so-called $500,000 scandal in this House and to capitalise on that. Evidently today, Sir, he has shown that that was not his purpose. At least he claimed that that was not his purpose, but that his real purpose was a sincere fear - a sincere fear of this democratic Government which has not in the last four years used its powers as the P.A.P. has been using its powers in the City Council in the last two years! A sincere fear that this Government would act in an undemocratic manner!

3.36 p.m.

Mr David: Sir, it is not my intention to speak on the substantive motion except in so far as it concerns a matter which was mentioned by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in moving the motion, and that was the understanding he has had from the Chief Minister that he was going to propose setting up an All-Party Committee to assist in overcoming the difficulties to which the hon. Member referred. I understand that it is the intention of the Chief Minister to make such a proposal and I would like to make it clear at this stage that it will be important, in my view, that the terms of reference of such a Committee should be very clearly drawn.

The Chief Minister intends to propose that there should be a Liaison Advisory Committee on which all Parties taking part in the elections should be represented and which would sit under my chairmanship. I think, Sir, that such a body could prove extremely useful and very valuable. It could indeed do the sort of thing that we have recently been engaged on, in the matter of agreeing on the regulation of the number of posters to be used and matters of that kind. If undesirable practices appear in the course of the elections, then that will be a very useful body in which it will be possible to reach All-Party agreement that those practices should cease. Similarly, it will be a suitable body with which to maintain liaison with the Commissioner of Police on his responsibilities, the difficulties he is incurring, and so. Finally, it is a body which could act as a forum in which allegations of incidents and so on can be aired and, one would hope, the truth arrived at.

But the Member for Tanjong Pagar, in referring to it, suggested - I am not sure if I am quoting him exactly - only one term of reference, that it should investigate complaints of partiality on the part of the Police. I myself, Sir, know of no ground for suggesting that the Police have been, or would be in the forthcoming elections, in any way partial. Moreover, even if there were any occasion for investigating accusations of that kind, it seems to me that this would be a very inappropriate body to do so. Inevitably the Parties sitting on it would be partisan and, in the case of at least one and possibly in the case of two, they would in fact be the aggrieved Parties and would therefore not be a very appropriate body to sit in judgment. I must also point out that the Police have the responsibility of enforcing law. The law is enacted by this Assembly and we have made a number of amendments to the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance with a view to ensuring as far as we can clean elections. The Police will do all they can to ensure that the law is enforced, or if there is a breach of it, that they bring the offenders to justice. But the Police in this matter are responsible to the Law itself; the power conferred upon them is conferred by law; it is not a delegated authority, and it would be quite wrong for me, as the Minister responsible, to direct any particular policeman in carrying out his duties, whether it was to arrest or to refrain from arresting anybody.

I can only conclude, Sir, by saying that I do believe that a body of this kind could be very useful provided we all understand what its functions are going to be, but I do not think that its primary function should be to provide the answer to the question: "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

3.42 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion demands the resignation of the Government.

Sir, I will first dwell on the resignation. The Labour Front Government should have resigned when their three Members left them and they were left in a minority. The Labour Front Coalition Government should have resigned when their architect, the former Chief Minister and leader of the Party, left them and resigned his Chief Ministership. The Labour Front Government should have resigned when there were only 15 Members on the Government side and 17 on the Opposition side. The Labour Front Government should have resigned when there were only ten elected Members on the Government side and 15 on the Opposition side.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Including the expert!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, they talked of democracy and democratic government, but because of their lust for power, they hung on to power and position and threw democracy aside. It would have been honourable for any Party to go to the people and say, "Look here, if you want us, elect us back because we are now in a minority and therefore we cannot run the Government." But with the Rendel Constitution as an excuse and the support of three ex-officio Members and four Nominated Members, they carried on the so-called "caretaker" Government and it lasted from June 1956 right up to now! This has not been for the benefit of Singapore or its people. The result was a Budget with higher taxation to off-set spending on holidays and entertainment. The public have to foot the bill. Let me ask them: what is left of the prestige of the Government?

Sir, their resignation should at least have come about when the elected Members of the Labour Front betrayed their voters and left their Party. They now call themselves the S.P.A. Government. Let me ask you, Sir: how many elected Members on the Government side are of the S.P.A. Party label? None! There are only two elected Members on the Government side, Sir - the U.M.N.O./ M.C.A. - who are still with their own Parties. The others are not, and therefore the Government has no business to carry on as the Government of Singapore. The public have lost confidence in them and the test is very near, not far away. I am sure that if they stand for elections, they will lose their deposits, because the voters today are conscious. They know who and who has done what and what, and which Party has done most for their benefits. They are not going to be bought with a flush of money this time. Those days are gone.

Sir, the question is this: if the Government resigns, who is going to run the Government? May I ask this? When the Ministers were away, either on holiday, on business or on leave, who ran the Government? And this has happened very often. The Government was run by the Permanent Secretaries, and there were also three ex-officio Members. They could run an interim Government. We could also have an All-Party Government say, one Member from each Party, or something like that. But it is not fair that the Members of the present Government should stick to their posts after the 2nd of April next when this Assembly is dissolved, for the simple reason that they no longer represent the people. The second reason is that the other day the Chief Minister talked about playing dirty politics. Sir, my colleagues and I on this side of the House have never tried to play the fool with one Party or the other as the Labour Front Coalition Government had done - friendship and breaking with the P.A.P. We are not throwing mud at either of them and it is for them to settle the business of the disclosures that have been made. As a Party, we feel that the coming elections should be clean and honest, without the Ministers using any influence in their canvassing. Sir, if the Government does not accept this motion, I request His Excellency the Governor - not only him, Sir, but I also request Mr Lennox-Boyd, the Secretary of State - that as this is the first election of the State of Singapore when all the Members of the Assembly will be elected by public franchise, please assure us clean elections by not allowing any Ministers to use their influence on the voters.

Sir, we know that the S.P.A. is dead. We do not want to flog a dead horse. It is no use, the public knows it. And in order that clean elections may be held without any influence by anyone, I would like, at the end of my speech, to move an amendment to this motion. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to both sides of the House, especially the leaders of the P.A.P. and that of the Government, because it is in fairness to the general public as a whole. The public could then vote without influence by anyone or by any Party remaining in office. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar was rather sober in his speech when he moved his motion; possibly he still has some love for the Chief Minister.

Sir, the other day in one of the recent Assembly sittings, I said I might move a motion. I did not do so as it will be the duty of the next government to inquire into the assets of Ministers, etc. I now wish to make a passing remark as to why I did not bring up that motion. The next government should appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the assets of the Ministers, and so on.

Sir, I would like to move an amendment to the original motion:

After the word "calls" to delete "for the immediate resignation of the Government and the holding of General Elections."

and to insert the words:

"the resignation of the Government on 2nd April, 1959, on the completion of its four-year term of office under the Rendel Constitution."

I mean, by this amendment, that on the completion of the four-year term of the Rendel Constitution, this Assembly will be dissolved, and with that dissolution goes the present Government, so that new elections may be held - a clean and impartial one without influence by anyone.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: I would suggest, in order that the present debate will not be trammelled in any way, that hon. Members who wish to speak on the main motion can also now speak on this Amendment. At the end of the debate, this Amendment could be put, and a Division taken if necessary. And if that Amendment is carried, of course, the main Question, as amended, will be put again. If it falls, then the original Question could be put. I only suggest it, because if the Amendment is put now, the debate from now on will be confined to the Amendment. If hon. Members feel that the suggestion I have put up is for the convenience of hon. Members, then we will do it that way. Is there any dissenting voice?

Mr Francis Thomas: On a point of clarification, Sir. Does it mean that we shall not speak on the Amendment except incidentally, and that there will be only one opportunity to speak except for the mover of the motion? Is that correct, Sir?

Mr Speaker: It is, of course, up to the Members who have spoken up to now to consider whether or not they wish to comment on this Amendment. If they wish to comment on this Amendment, then of course my suggestion must fall.

Upon the Member for Changi gesturing

Mr Speaker: Does the Member for Changi who has already spoken wish to comment on the amendment?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I will have to propose the question on the amendment. The hon. Member who moved it has completed his speech, I take it?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Not yet, Sir, I have only a few more words to say.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will complete it, and move his amendment formally.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: The only last words which I want to say to the voters are these: When you vote, remember that the people whom you last elected spent over 1,200 days on holiday at your expense, and you had to foot the bill. Do you want to elect such people again?

Mr Speaker: Any seconder? No seconder? Then the amendment falls. The original Question then is before the House.

3.59 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that some more heat would have been generated before I would be called upon to stand up and reply to the points asked of me by the hon. mover of the motion and to refute the allegations made by Members on the other side of the House in regard to the activities of the Government.

Sir, I think it will be easier for me to touch on the last speaker first. The hon. Member for Telok Ayer wants to go down on record his last famous speech in this House - on his particular hobby horse: this Government should have resigned two years ago! This Government should have died, because they had ten elected Members against fifteen elected, or 15 Members against 17 Members.

But the unfortunate thing is that all that he has spoken on just now and all that he has been speaking on time and time again has just disclosed a lamentable ignorance of constitutional law. I am Chief Minister not because of SPA. I am Chief Minister because I am able to have the confidence of the majority in this House, and by virtue of that I am Chief Minister, whether I am in the Labour Front, the SPA or any other party. By virtue of my being able to get the confidence of the majority of the Members of this House, I remain Chief Minister. He could have me removed in 1956, or even much earlier than that. He did not do so because he knew he was not strong enough to do so. Then why must he feel a bit sorry? One must not worry about the bleatings of a weak man during the last few days of his membership in this Assembly. I remember, Sir, so many years ago when he was then contesting the elections, the poor hon. Member had to come to my house early in the morning to wait for me to wake up. He said: "Please, Lim Yew Hock, tolong la, saya tidak boleh menang, tolong, tolong." I still remember the date. But let it be. That is all right. Even now, Sir, I do not know who is the leader of his Party.

The hon. Member for Tanglin made a very sober speech and to the point, which demands a direct answer from me. But when the hon. Member for Telok Ayer moves an amendment without anybody wanting to second him, I think, in a democracy, if a man just shouts and shouts alone, he is therefore useless and not wanted. That is all.

Sir, my colleague, the Chief Secretary, has explained to this House how he proposes to have that committee working in liaison with him. If the working can be improved upon, I am sure the Chief Secretary will welcome suggestions for improvement.

Sir, we come now to the main speech. The mover of the motion has said that he hoped he would set a more serious tone in this debate, and for that I thank him. I shall see to it that whatever I say should be in a more serious tone, and that it should not only be serious but should also be truthful.

I cannot understand the reason why the hon. Member found it necessary to move this motion. I did not know at first when I received notice of this amendment. I thought that here again his Party are trying to play politics, for they know that this is going to be the last sitting of this Assembly and they know that the elections will take place in due time. I wondered why it was necessary for the mover of this motion to table a motion here like this, and to call on the Government to resign when, constitutionally speaking, the Government remains in a caretaker capacity until the next Government comes in. But now I know. It is because of the unfortunate words I used, and I must admit that those words were unfortunate. But you must understand, Sir, at that time when I said all those words, I was really greatly distressed. I will try not to be distressed again and I will be careful of the words I use so that hon. Members may not have any more fears as to what I mean and as to what I do not mean. I think he made a reference to those few words of mine which were spoken under great stress. Let me quote from Hansard, Volume 3, No. 24, columns 2164 to 2165 - just one sentence.

"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."

Now, I did later on in my speech qualify what I meant by dirtiness. I said the hon. Member was dirty to the extent that he broke a promise. Therefore, to the extent that he broke a promise, I will break mine, and let God decide whether I am dirty or he is dirty, or whether we are all dirty.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: God forbid to say!

The Chief Minister: Then I went on to explain, well, shall we say, at that time I was really distressed and said: "Now, Sir, the subversive clause was put in as a result of the hon. Member and I seeing the Secretary of State for the Colonies." He said it was a downright lie, and he was called to order, and was not allowed to say more. I also did not say any more. I left it at that because suddenly I became sober. If one can be dirty, I think it is quite right that the other side should not be as dirty or dirtier. If a little bit dirty, tidak apa (never mind). It cannot be helped. You have already lost your head. You have said it. Let it be. Now, I must ask two questions. What did I mean by the word "dirty"? What I meant was that since he could break his promise given to me, I could jolly well break my promise given to him. That was all. To that extent, the word "dirty" in my speech should be qualified. Nothing more.

I have been in office as Chief Minister since 1956, and, indeed, I am rather proud of my record. No one can say that I have been dirty in my dealings with the public, not even with the Members of the Opposition. Not at all, Sir, In fact, I have been most accommodating. I have helped the Opposition to survive. If I had not done so, I do not know how the Opposition would have been able to survive until today. Would you call that dirty politics? Definitely no. It is not only clean politics but it is politics of the highest order to help even your Opposition to survive! And yet they crow today and say they are going to throw me out!

Then I was asked - let me use the proper words, which are much better - if I would "withdraw the statement" I made about the secret meeting. I think I said about fifteen words, just fifteen words. "The subversive clause" and when I came to the word "Colonies" I got the hon. Member's interjection and he called me a "downright liar". Then you pulled me up to order. I only said about 15 words, Sir. But the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in his reply, I think, said about 150 words. I am still satisfied with my 15 words. I do not wish to say more.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Chief Minister will give way.

The Chief Minister: He can reply, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Chief Minister has not given way.

The Chief Minister: The hon. Member, being the mover of the motion, has the right of reply.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: But I want your reply!

The Chief Minister: I said 15 words should be sufficient. I did not want to expand on them. I have said 15 words. I do not see why I should withdraw those 15 words, especially when the hon. Member himself had used about 150 words to say that I was wrong. Then in that debate last month, I really learned something from him. Let me see. Here it is. He was saying about Mr Newell. This is what he called in Latin, "Suppressio yen suggestio falsi". I throw the words back at him - Suppressio yen suggestio falsi. I said 15 words. He said 150. That is all right. Let it be. Let the public decide.

Then the hon. Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim, said that there was a denial in the Chinese papers. There is no denial from the Colonial Office. There was no comment. "No comment" was the answer. But not a denial. And it is because, unfortunately, I had used the word "dirty" in a speech when I was really emotional that I have made the P.A.P. most unhappy and most fearful, and as they say, fearful that I will be really dirty. One must not judge a man by just what he has said. One little slip should not, and must not, damn him. Judge his actions for the past three years. Have I, as Chief Minister, done anything that could be described as dirty politics? I believe I have not. In fact, I am so proud that I can go to the polls tomorrow and say: "On my record I come back to you as I am. Pass judgment."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I thought you are changing Divisions!

The Chief Minister: He said therefore that he feared we might play dirty politics. He said we were going to indulge in it - because I had said so. Therefore, these elected Ministers must resign. And now he says: "Though I have been running down the Colonial masters for the past four years, today it is all right. Let the Colonial masters run the show for two more months." Or it might be because after the so-called denial in the Nanfang press he thinks: "Oh, the Colonial Office is now with me. It is now my friend. So wonderful. I am now the friend of the Colonial Office. Therefore, I can trust the Colonial officials now. But I cannot trust Lim Yew Hock; nor can I trust M. P. D. Nair, nor can I trust anyone who is an elected Minister." I must try to keep this speech on a sober note. Sir, he then tried to explain how the Ministers can use influence during the elections.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Which they did!

The Chief Minister: We have not used our position in any way to influence the proper running of the elections. We have not. He may mention that I was able to walk into the polling booth when he was not allowed. I do not know whether this is a little lesson to him. I went in as one of the polling clerks to replace another polling clerk, and sat down there. He was asked, "Will you go out? I want to sit here. I want to see how things are going on here." And I went in as a polling clerk with a statutory declaration. I went in as one, and I also had a chit from the candidate to say that I, "Mr Lim Yew Hock is a polling clerk." Oh, he cannot believe me. Surely he cannot. I do not expect him to believe me, in fact, I have said many things which he will not believe, although many things I did have been enjoyed by him.

I can say this, Sir, I can deny in the most emphatic terms that my elected colleagues on this side of the House have not always been clean in all their work. They are not here to use their position or their influence to upset any elections. We will also all be very busy fighting the elections.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Exactly, why do you not take leave?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar was heard without interruption. Perhaps he will allow the Chief Minister to speak without interruption.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had hoped my opening remarks would have set a more serious tone in this debate. Result - interjections. "So do not believe what I say, but please judge me by what I do." We will do that. We will judge him by what he does instead of believing him in what he says. He calls on us to resign so that we can - not use our position to influence the elections. How can we influence the elections? The election machinery is in the hands of the Chief Secretary. He runs the police, and he runs the Elections Office. We have no say in the matter. But it was suggested that we could interfere and could go to the police stations. My God, I would like to know which Minister goes to the police stations and thereby lowers his dignity? No Minister goes to police stations. He has just to tell the Chief Secretary of anything that he hears. He does not walk into a police station. He need not have to.

How could we ever accept such a motion, Sir? "That, in view of the public disgust and loss of public confidence in the Government . . .". Public disgust, well, the hon. Member for Changi has tried to prove that all the disgust, if there ever is any, has been disgust of the P.A.P.'s activities, not of the Government. Loss of public confidence - yes, there has been -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I wish the Chief Minister can clarify some more in this House on what I meant by "P.A.P. activities" when I commented on this motion. What type of activities?

The Chief Minister: I think what the hon. Member wants is just for me to repeat his speech again. I do not think we have the time, Sir.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Clause 30!

The Chief Minister: Well, the hon. Member is concerned about clause 30. I had my say, and the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar had his say. I am sure he will have a say again in his reply. But as I say, I have learnt a little bit of Latin - suppressio yen suggestio falsi.

Sir, I think we would like this last sitting to close on a friendly note, a friendly exchange between both sides of the House, and let us leave this sitting feeling happy and clean for the fight that is to come, instead of going out with our faces sour, with each staring at the other and saying "Ugh! What next? This move is your move. I will make the next move." I hope it will not be necessary-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, may I make a point of clarification?

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: During his speech, he mentioned me as seeking help for the Telok Ayer constituency. Does he not remember that I have worked for him in Havelock, and that he is not registered any more there?

The Chief Minister: I have, Sir, I think not only has he worked for me for Havelock, in fact, he helped me to get into Havelock. Without him I might have failed. I might have lost even my deposit-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: No joking, Sir!

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Chief Minister: I might even have lost my deposit! But, Sir, I do not think that he need have come to my house at 6 o'clock in the morning and sat until 9 o'clock just to help me, Sir, I do not think it was necessary. No.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: No time!

The Chief Minister: Sir, now we are going into a new era. We are going to have internal self-government and the last few days have given the public an eye-opener as to the things that are to come. I do not know whether they are good or they are bad. But all I can say is that it is a challenge to the people of Singapore to wake up to their responsibilities. If things go wrong, they have themselves to blame. They will not have, as they had before, the Colonial bogey to keep on whipping; for everything that went wrong, it was Colonialism. No more. It will be they themselves who will have to be responsible for what they get, for what they do. The danger is definitely there. There is that grave danger that the new constitution might go into the wrong hands. There is that danger. It is a calculated risk which we all take. But I do urge all Members in this House, representatives of all political parties, that if they want to fight a common enemy, they must be strong, they must be together, they must put national interests above all other things. Of course, I am sure I am not appealing to the P.A.P., because the P.A.P. say they are going to be the next government. They need not have to worry about all these things. But to those who are not in the P.A.P., those who believe that what has been happening in the City Council today is not good for the country, those who believe that all these things that have been happening in the last few days are not good for the country, to them I say, "Wake up! Wake up and fight! Do not be so mesmerized. Do not be so frightened. Remember we must place the national interests above everything."

If we all can appreciate the importance of national interests, there is no need for us to come here and sling mud at one another. And while we are doing that, we will then have to repent at leisure that the new constitution has gone into the wrong hands.

4.23 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking today exceptionally for the Labour Front with a directive from my Party. In earlier days we normally left Party members in the Assembly extremely free. But on this occasion, my Party has had a meeting and has passed a resolution and I am speaking in accordance with that resolution. The terms of the resolution I need not give in detail. They referred to the matter which had been referred to in the debate already today, to the fact that the present S.P.A. members of the Assembly have obviously changed their party names. They referred to the Chief Minister's unfortunate reference to playing dirty politics, and they said that in these circumstances it was undesirable and against commonsense for the Government to continue in office to the full possible length it might otherwise.

I would like to say that this matter would have been the subject of a resolution moved by myself if I had been able to find a seconder, and if I had been able to clear it with my Party in time. Unfortunately, I had many things to attend to. It was not reached on our Party's General Council agenda until Sunday, the 15th of this month, by which time I was out of time.

I would like, Mr Speaker, Sir, to read from a debate of 1956, because I want to assure the House that what I said then has been my attitude to political problems throughout my ten years in political life and that it will be my attitude in this debate as well.

"We can achieve nothing if we allow ourselves to be dominated by a senseless fear of our fellow Singaporeans. Nor can we achieve anything if we are dominated by the equally senseless consequences of senseless fear, and that is the vain conceit that our own person, our own Party, our own community or class contains in itself all that is wise and all that is trustworthy and all that is worth while. It is not so. I disagree with many people, but I always recognise in them that they have some good intentions and that they have some wisdom; and we must all recognise that. No doubt we shall often profoundly disagree. We shall criticise each other. We shall attack each other, and it is right that that should happen because it is part of the natural basis of democracy. But beneath all that criticism and attack on the Party system there does lie an absolutely fundamental sense of national brotherhood, a sense of mutual trust in each other's good intentions. We have got to hold fast to the faith that our political opponents are trying to do what is right, even when we are convinced, in fact, that they are doing what is wrong. We have got to accept that, at bottom, they too are seeking the welfare of Singapore and not its destruction. Any politician or Party or community which tries to separate itself from the sense of national brotherhood and to retire into suspicion and distrust and self-conceit is blind to the challenge of Merdeka."

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member identify that?

Mr Francis Thomas: Yes, indeed, Sir, it is Vol. 1, No. 29, the official Hansard for Thursday, the 5th of April, 1956.

Mr Speaker: Column?

Mr Francis Thomas: I beg your pardon, Sir. Columns 1844-5.

When I said those words, Sir, I said them as a result of quite long experience of politics. I quoted in the papers recently from another speech of mine about a year later, 1957, when we debated corruption and politics where I said that I had seen a good deal of the dirty side in the political life in Singapore, that is, mixed up with quite a number of dirty politicians; some, I was happy to say, had crossed out of political life, others are still with us. I said it had not been pleasant but I saw no alternative and that is a fact. We have to live together in Singapore whether we like it or not. If we do not live together, we shall die together. Anybody who builds up sectional fears and distrust is doing a very grave disservice to Singapore. It was partly because of that that I thought the Chief Minister was going far down that path. In view of what his Party had sat down beforehand, I crossed the Floor of this House, because I felt that he was going beyond the point at which the national interests could be served.

Mr Speaker, in this debate we heard a great deal of distasteful exchanges and I do not want to add to them. But I must try to justify the point of view which my Party has put forward and which I myself have said. I am not trying to make any innuendo or to say any more than precisely what I say. But if I do appear to make any innuendo, Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that you will stop me and I shall welcome your stopping me and I shall apologise sincerely. I am not trying to say any more than precisely what I say and I am trying to choose my words with the greatest care.

I do believe that there has been some loss of confidence in the Government. On the 3rd of March, the hon. Member for Queenstown spoke to the effect that it would be a very good thing if foreign investors in the transport industry had their legal position taken away; and we have not yet had any categorical denial from the Front Bench of the Government. The Front Bench of the Government has not said that that is emphatically not their policy and that there is no question at all of depriving foreign investors of the protection of the law. I do not believe it is the intention of the Chief Minister or any other Minister to deprive foreign investors of the protection of the law. But they had not, as a Party, nor as a Government, been able, in fact, to control one of their own party members, one of their own Government supporters, who wished to say that for what reasons he best knows. He has said it and that word can be quoted by anybody against Singapore to frighten away any foreign investor, and the Government has not been able even to repudiate it as a policy, let alone to control him beforehand and prevent him from saying it.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Francis Thomas resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: If the hon. Member is referring to what I said, as far as I can recollect, I do not think that I have ever referred to foreign investments in this country in my speech on 3rd March.

Mr Francis Thomas: I do not think that we need debate it again, Sir. The hon. Member's speech was to the effect that the Singapore Traction Company should be reduced to the same terms as the Chinese bus companies where at present it has a privileged position under the Singapore Traction Ordinance. I was perfectly aware of what he said, and the implication obviously was that they were expatriate capital and therefore they should not be protected by the Ordinance under which they built up their company, established their interests and provided transport services to Singapore. It is a very arguable point of view, but it is not a point of view which is going to serve Singapore to argue here at a time when you need more employment and not less, and where you must import capital if you are going to expand employment.

I give that example, Sir, because if the Government Front Bench cannot effectively control its Back-Benchers on matters of importance, it does inevitably breed a loss of confidence in the public, the friends of Singapore and people overseas. It is my belief also that a very new Party like the Singapore People's Alliance inevitably has some weaknesses of control at the subordinate levels. The Chief Minister is, I think, the President of the Party as well as the head of the Government, and I suppose that on him falls the responsibility for the control of the Party, but I have my doubts. What is more, many people in Singapore have their doubts whether in fact he would be able to exercise control over the Party during the very excitable period when the elections are coming. My mind goes back, Sir, to the Kallang by-election when Tun Lim Yew Hock was personally in control of the conduct of that by-election. I am making no innuendos, Sir, at all. I am simply stating a simple fact that there was a criminal assault on some P.A.P. workers in the Jalan Besar area; that apparently the thugs who made the assault travelled in a Labour Front office car registered in the name of the Labour Front to be lent for the purposes of that by-election, and that that car was held by the Police for some weeks for investigation

Mr Speaker: Order. I think probably the hon. Member will agree that he is going a little far from the motion.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am sorry, Sir, if I am straying far away. I am only trying to indicate the dangers which I foresee coming up again. Perhaps I can come to more recent disclosures, Sir, I had a telephone call last night from a man who is an old Labour Front member and who refused to join a new Party. He with his friends were subjected to some intimidation towards the end of last year. Last night he was assaulted in the Jalan Besar area and had to go to the General Hospital for treatment. I have not -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is blaming the Government for that incident, but the motion is merely a motion asking for the immediate resignation of the Government.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am sorry, Sir, I am trying to deal with the loss of public confidence. The point of my reference was that as soon as that telephone call came to me, I had other people asking me, "Is it true? Has this been done?" I do not say that it has any connection at all. As far as I know, the incident took place in or near some liquor shop and it may well be nothing more than a brawl over a bottle of beer. What I am saying is that the public mind is disturbed and those who remember the Kallang by-election will believe that this was a political assault; and that, Sir, does indicate a very grave loss of confidence in the Government. I am not wishing to link in any way the Chief Minister with this incident or with the earlier incident. I am only saying that he has not, in my view, got full control of some of those who wish to act in support of his Party. He apparently had not got full control over Mr Chew Swee Kee. I do not wish to go into this thing at great length, but Mr Chew Swee Kee apparently had $500,000. I knew nothing of it until it was revealed in the Press, but apparently the S.P.A. knew nothing about it. Mr Chew Swee Kee was the Minister for Education of the S.P.A. and was a member of the Party, and apparently was not sufficiently under control to let the Government know what he was doing or let the Party know or let anybody know that he was apparently acting in the name of the Party, or else his funds would have been subject to tax. The suggestion that they were Labour Front funds is merely ludicrous. Everyone knows that the S.P.A. took a long time in actually achieving birth and that it was substantially formed some months before the formation was publicly announced. The suggestion that Mr Chew Swee Kee was collecting funds for the Labour Front and, having collected the funds, he suddenly changed his mind and joined the S.P.A., is just absurd.

Sir, there again there is a lack of control within the Government and the Party and that is, I think, dangerous because if a wrong action does take place at some subordinate level without the approval of the heads of the Party or of the Government, nevertheless, once the action has occurred, it will be very difficult for them to disown it and to try to take the strong action that ought to be taken, to try to ensure that the man who has done wrong is not in any way protected but that he should receive, if anything, more rigorous treatment because he has abused a position of trust.

I was very happy, Sir, when the Chief Minister said that his unfortunate remarks on 4th March were not an overall intention to countenance dirty politics or to use dirty political methods, but that they were merely spoken in a sense of distress at a time when he was under great stress and that he was only referring to a particular thing that he was going to do. He felt that the leader of the P.A.P. had said something he should not; so he was also going to say something which he should not as well, and I hope his denial of any further purpose was strong enough to leave no question in the minds of some of his supporters.

But there is another aspect of confusion, as it appears to me, in the background of the S.P.A. and one which again, from what I hear, is causing a loss of confidence in the wisdom of the Front Bench of the present Government. There have been references in the newspapers to a proposed students' observation mission to China. I know very little about it. According to the newspapers, the Students' Unions of the Nanyang University and the University of Malaya said, "This is all nonsense. There should not be any such observation mission organised by somebody who is not himself in any way a student." The organiser, according to the Press, is a man who has for many years worked very closely on the Central Committee of the Labour Front. He left the Labour Front at the time the S.P.A. was formed. Whether or not he is a member of the S.P.A., he is certainly sympathetic to the S.P.A. and has gone around canvassing on their behalf and he is trying to organise this students' observation mission to Red China. I say nothing at all against it, but if the S.P.A. is going to take a strong anti-Communist line, then I presume they will have something to say about this students' observation mission. It is time they did. They should make their position clear. Are they for it or against it? What does it all mean? What are they trying to do? I do not think that they should let Mr Lee Yew Seng try to build up support amongst the students on the basis of giving them a free trip to China whilst, at the same time and on the other hand, they are attacking them for being not hostile enough towards Communists. It appears that there is a possibility of confusion of thought over this. This is not child's play. This is not sitting around a table playing cards or mahjong, trying to outsmart the other man. This is a time when very grave decisions have got to be taken. The future of 1� million people and of many more still to be born rests on the next few months to some extent. It has not been a creditable exhibition very often in this Assembly, Sir, and it is not surprising that the public do not always treat the proceedings of the Assembly with the respect that they ought to get. The corruption debate of 1957 ought to have convinced the public beyond question that all sorts of extremely wrong things were going on in local politics, and yet the shock of surprise and the twisting and turnings which have followed further revelations show that that debate made very little impact on the mass of the people at all. It is only now that they are beginning to wake up to some of the possibilities of the folly and muddle that people can create in politics. The main achievement of our recent debates has been to throw dirt on the faces of everybody possible, to do as much harm as we can to the reputations of political leaders. If that process goes on, as it has gone on steadily, the only result can be the destruction of democracy. All the leaders will be disgraced. Everybody will say, "For heaven's sake, let us have somebody who has got a serious interest and is not merely wasting his time shouting rude words like a street-corner little boy." If democracy breaks down, there is not much alternative but some less free form of government which might make very deep changes in Singapore and make us less happy than we have been in the past. Now, the dirt has been cast in this debate and in the last few weeks in the Press, things have been said. The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing first seemed to say that he would not do anything to the City Council, because they would not immediately send him their minutes and then he seemed to say that he would do something to them. I do not know what was in mind. He did not make it very clear but at least he has not said anything that is going to be very reassuring to the public.

It is difficult, Sir, for me to feel that if the Government remain in office for the next two months they will not command the confidence of all the public in the way that they ought to. We ourselves in this Assembly have pointed out in July 1957 the very great extent of corruption, wrong-doing, malpractice and all sorts of things which should not have occurred in elections. We have all borne testimony to it with the unanimous vote of the Assembly. There it is in the record. But now we are coming to a much more important election-not just the Cairnhill and Tanjong Pagar by-elections-but to an election under a new Constitution in which 320,000 new citizens are to vote; under a Constitution which gives new powers to the most important election yet. Consequently, the heat will be all the greater. And can the public have confidence in an Assembly which itself has said that all the elections hitherto have been corrupt and have been full of improper practices and gang activities and all the rest of it? Can it really be said. "Well, of course, it does not apply to any of the Ministers or any of the Government Assemblymen."? I do not think they can, Sir.

I would like to say a few brief words on the sociological background of these elections. In 1954 the Labour Front gave its principles and aims; one of the principles was the removal of unjust disabilities fettering any section of the population, and another aim was the establishment of citizenship - full political rights - for those who wish to make Singapore their home and the object of their loyalty. Whilst it was expressed in general terms, what was in mind obviously was the large number of China-born Chinese who had lived in Singapore, contributed very notably to Singapore's development and expansion and prosperity but who, until the Labour Front wrote that down and put it into practice as a Government policy, and secured it for the people and created a Singapore Citizenship, they had no political rights. And it was the Labour Front, with the assent and support of all other Parties in the Assembly, which opened the door and said, "Come in, brothers. Come in and join us. We are all citizens together, citizens of one fair City. We are brothers together; we will not keep you out any more. Come in and take your share of the powers, the responsibility; take your full political rights." And they came in - 320,000. Well, every one can see what that meant. it meant an enormous shift in the balance of political power. In the past, political leadership was confined by and large to the English educated. It was necessarily confined in the past to those who could speak English at a fairly high level. In fact, the political Parties were largely controlled by the English educated and the part of the non-English educated was to support the English educated and secure political power for them. But when we put that decision of the Labour Front in 1954 into our principles and aims, we said, "That is wrong and it has got to stop. There must be equal citizenship for all." And we said it, and we did it. It was right. It is not going to be easy. It has made an enormous change.

One of the sociological facts in Singapore is that you have still not established a single Singapore culture. There is even some cultural strain between the English educated Chinese and the Chinese educated Chinese - not deep, yet getting less, I believe. Policies have been sound and right; steps have been taken in the last few years which have helped to narrow any division and to unify and not to split more widely apart. Things have been going well. There has been marked improvement.

But there is one controverting factor. That is the very rapid expansion of the population. There is inevitably going to be a period of reduced prosperity for Singapore. The trade figures may improve; the number of investments may improve.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member could relate all those remarks to the motion before the House. Perhaps the hon. Member is so taken up with the subject that he forgets that the motion is for the Assembly to call for the immediate resignation of the Government.

Mr Francis Thomas: I do apologise, Sir. This is a point which cannot be made except at considerable length. It is, to my view, relevant. But if you think it has taken excessive time, then I must drop it without attempting to make it short, because to make it short would inevitably misrepresent the situation.

I will only say that there is an aspect in the propaganda line which has been followed, not by the Chief Minister but by some members of his Party, and which could be damaging and could be very dangerous, and that is by seeking to drive further apart the Chinese educated and the English educated to cause a split in national unity. People are talking about it here and there. Word comes back to me from the people who like to keep me informed of what is going on, and there is that little feeling of doubt as to whether there is some attempt to drop back from the decisive citizenship law, and to say, "Well, we gave too much. Perhaps we ought to withdraw it." But I do not believe that danger exists in any very deep sense, but it is one point of possible explosion, and it is one which is liable to become heated as things are said and done during the pre-election period. If things are said by a man speaking as an individual, then they carry his individual weight behind them. If they are said by anybody who has the rank of a Minister, they do carry very great weight with the large number of the public, because the name of Minister has acquired very high qualities of power in the minds of the public. Even as an ex-Minister, I get people coming to me and imagining that I have a quite unreal degree of power which even a Minister would not exercise. But they still think that I have some power even though I am not a Minister now. And statements can be made which, as they pass round in the coffee-shops and come back to the plank and attap huts, are misunderstood and are taken as constituting statements of the intention of the authorities.

Sir, I only wish to conclude by urging that the Ministers should resign. I do not have any quarrel with them. I myself resigned my Ministry with a sense of relief, and I wrote to the Chief Minister to say that we had disagreed in the past without any wish to disagree again and there would be difficulties, political strains, in the future. I also said that I should remember, I did remember and I would remember, the very valuable and courageous services which he rendered to Singapore in the past three years; he had done a very valuable job in many ways, and I hope that though there would be disagreements, they would not destroy old friendships - I say that to all my old friends on the Government Benches - and if I disagreed with them, I would say so; and if they would say what was wrong, I would try to put them right, but I would not let my heart be filled with anger against them nor will I conduct any election campaign to try to build up the forces of anger and quarrelling as a means of getting votes. Those things could be very bad to Singapore and still more bad for ourselves. When I say the Government should resign, I see no loss to them in resigning except perhaps a small loss of saying, "Well, the P.A.P. called on us to resign, and we have done what the P.A.P. asked." That I suppose is the difficulty, but that seems to be the only possible loss. There is no work for them to do now; occasional routine letters will come up for signing; there will be some matters which are quite a good thing for Ministers to look at. But there is nothing which cannot wait for two months or are so important that must be taken as a Ministerial decision of policy. The decisions perhaps will be taken, but they can be taken perfectly well without having a Minister's statement or the Ministry's, if necessary. Then I suppose the three official Ministers could carry on. But I do not think the Ministers should remain as Ministers. There is the power and prestige and influence of Ministers during this pre-election period. Even if they themselves are most scrupulously careful in every possible way to act in the right manner, the only result will be that they will make it very difficult for themselves to win the elections, because they have to withdraw themselves from perfectly harmless election activities. And in spite of that, there will still be many uncontrolled supporters in the background who will make use of their names, and the people know it. It has been done all the time: a man goes around and says, "I am working for Mr So-and-so. Do this. Do that." Whether he is working or not, nobody can tell, and until the elections actually start he would not even have to show a credential from his candidate. And what can you do about it? Nothing at all. But the name of the Ministry is there, and the name of the Minister can be used.

I do not think anybody, Sir, would feel that the Government's staying in office serves any public purpose, any necessary purpose. It will be hard for the public to believe that if they do stay in office they are staying in from a sense of dedication and service. The public will be tempted to say, "They think they are more likely to win the next elections if they stay in, than if they come down from their pedestals and join the common man, and fight the elections as common men." I do not think it will help them at all to win the elections, but I think there are dangers in Singapore today which ought to be avoided, and I hope that the Government will help to avoid them by resigning in the very near future and standing for the elections as modern citizens and not as Ministers.

4.55 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is an astounding one and it created so much astonishment when it was first published in the newspapers that the people of Singapore expected quite a lot of allegations against the Ministers, the Government, and other very damaging remarks (according to the P.A.P.) of gifts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. But up to now it has reached an absolute anti-climax. Is there any justification whatsoever for this motion to be filed in this manner, "That, in view of the public disgust and loss of public confidence . . ."? What disgust is there? What loss of confidence? The mover of the motion has not been able to cite a single case of disgust. The only thing that has been brought up again is the question of the half a million dollars, and I would have been happy to leave it with a Commission of Inquiry; but as the hon. Mr Francis Thomas has brought it up again, I must speak on it.

We are happy to abide by the findings of a Commission of Inquiry, and our Party is pressing for it; and the result, I am sure, will be given even before Nomination Day. We are quite clear that our Party, the S.P.A., has nothing to do with it. The only Party that has to do with it is the Labour Front, and when we look upon the circumstances under which this money was received and disclosed by Mr Francis Thomas in September 1957, and the result of the receipt of that money from a foreign source in order to combine the P.A.P. and the Labour Front to fight the Liberal-Socialists, then we can say that the Labour Front is and must be responsible for this money, and not us. And what was worse - in spite of the money being used to purchase support by one Party or by the other, there was absolute treachery, and one Party was torpedoed. In spite of the treachery that was practised by the P.A.P. when it made a pact with the Labour Front, the Vice-Chairman of the Labour Front can, in this Chamber and in the last two days, stand up and support the very Party which has let it down. That I cannot understand. That is beyond my comprehension. If we take away that item which is now before the Commission of Inquiry, what else is there for the Government to answer? Mr Francis Thomas made the most unconvincing speech in his life in this Chamber. I do not know why he spoke without confidence and so shakily. Perhaps he crossed the Floor on the wrong premises.

Sir, I am not good at throwing wild allegations, and making conjectures like the hon. Member for Changi. I am usually very brief, and try to speak home truths. But sometimes home truths hurt. For instance, Sir, when the hon. Mr Speaker stopped the Member for Tanjong Pagar for saying that my remarks were inane, he said that my remarks were stupid. Sir, truth does hurt when it reaches home. I want to let this meeting end in a spirit of goodwill and try and keep it on the tone on which it has been fought throughout today. This is our last meeting here, and I hope everyone of us who will be meeting again in the field of elections will do so with clean hands and good heart. Let the better man win. Do not let us go out of the way to try and hurt the other by damaging his character. I can tell you from my own experience that that will not pay, and I am sure the people of Singapore are much wiser than they were four years ago, and will cast their votes in the right way.

5.02 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, what a publicity stunt and what a political stunt! When my motion was debated yesterday and this morning, I was accused by the leader of the PAP., the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, and Mr Francis Thomas, that I was trying a political and publicity stunt. My Party was also accused of trying to have some political stunt. Now, Sir, both these Members, the leader of the P.A.P. and Mr Francis Thomas, know the constitution very well. They know the Rendel Constitution. So is there any necessity in bringing in this motion here today? If there is no necessity, is it not a political stunt of the P.A.P.? Why then accuse me when my motion calls for a Commission of Inquiry into the leakage?

From the debate I heard this afternoon, Sir, it appears that Members of the Opposition have the same feeling that this motion should have been brought up two years ago. If that is so, why is it that no Member of the Opposition has had the courage to bring in this motion? If it is the feeling of any Member of the Opposition that this motion should have been brought up two years ago, then a Member should have brought in this motion, and then throw the Government out. Why wait until today? Again I say that it is a political stunt because the election is coming near. It is only a matter of two months away. So they say, "Let us try some political stunt to smear our opponents", and in order to smear their opponents, the political Party might gain power. That is why this motion is brought in today.

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar knows very well that if this motion were accepted, we would have to go back to the position where the running of the Government would be in the hands of His Excellency the Governor and the three officials. Now, during the four years that he has been here, he has been against the Colonial power, and he has been against Colonial government. But now when elections are a matter of one or two more months, he prefers to have a Colonial government. What a political stunt! What a somersault stunt of the P.A.P.! Sir, the Chief Minister in his reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar qualified his words, that "I will also be dirty. If you try to be dirty, I will also try to be dirty". And he qualified those words by saying that "if you, as an hon. Member, cannot keep your promise, I will also try not to keep my promise, and be as dirty as you are."

Sir, the P.A.P. are so much of a political bankrupt that they are afraid of this little word "dirty". The Chief Minister has never indicated that he will use force just by his having said that word "dirty". The Chief Minister has never indicated that he will arrest the P.A.P. stooges and their members. So why must they have that fear? Is it not a guilty conscience? It is only the accused person; it is only the wrongdoer who fears a thing. If you are not a wrong-doer, and if you have the courage, why then should you be afraid of that word "dirty"? The S.P.A. will never go to the polls with a dirty mind. We fight clean, and we will always fight clean. I am quite sure every Member on this side of the House will fight the elections clean. It was, and it is the P.A.P.'s motive to fight the elections dirty. They have already fought elections dirtily, and that is why they are so scared and so afraid that if they are really dirty, the Government might use force on them. If not, why should they be afraid?

It is surprising that Mr Francis Thomas comes today to say that he supports the motion calling upon the Government to resign forthwith. In his statement, where he explained in the Press why he had crossed the Floor, he made a few remarks which I cannot understand. One of the remarks is:

"I did not think it would be good for Singapore to smash the then Government, which with all its faults was doing a good job."

This appeared in the Straits Times of Saturday, 14th March, 1959. Even though he knew of the faults of the Government, he admitted that the Government was still a good Government. He, at that time, did not intend to press for the resignation of the Government. Neither did he think fit to smash the then Government. Further down, Sir, he said:

"The Government was already discredited; Singapore's good name was already damaged; the Labour Front"-

Not the S.P.A.-

"was already disgraced by the actions of its former leaders."

Now, Sir, is not Mr Francis Thomas a leader of the Labour Front? If so why did he make the statement? If he then felt that the Labour Front had already damaged its reputation, he was still a member of the Labour Front, and a Minister of the Labour Front. Why had he not called upon his own Government at that time to resign? Why wait until today? Why support the P.A.P. and try to curry favour and get married to the P.A.P.?

He further went on, Sir, in the same paper:

"I did not think it would be good for-Singapore to smash the then Government"-

repeating what he had said previously-

"which with all its faults was doing a good job. Instead, in January, 1958, I got Tun Lim Yew Hock and the other Labour Front leaders to promise that we would make a real effort to clean up the party; I accepted appointment as secretary general for the purpose of cleaning it up and reorganising it."

Secretary-General! Is it not a very high appointment in a political Party? Is it not his duty then, as Secretary-General of his own Party, to clean it up? If he, as Secretary-General, could not clean up his Party then, who is at fault? Why then come along now and say that the Government must resign, when it has only a matter of one or two months to go?

Then, Sir, he further said:

"By the middle of 1958, it was obvious that the Labour Front would not be cleaned up as promised. Instead the Labour Front ran a very dirty election campaign in support of its candidate at the Kallang by-election."

Now, Sir, if he knew very well at that time, that is, in the middle of 1958, that he could not clean up his Party, it was again his duty to resign. Mr Francis Thomas was a school teacher before he came into this Assembly. After coming into this Assembly, he became a Minister, and a Minister carries a salary of $2,500. Was it because of the $2,500 that he was not prepared to resign? If it is so, let him be frank enough and say so. Why wait until today? He is now of the opinion that if the Government remains in office for another two months the people of Singapore will have no confidence in the Government. If they had no confidence in the Government, it would not have stood until today, and if the Government can stand until what it is today, the Government will be able to carry on for another two months until a new Government comes in.

5.12 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I certainly feel that this is in contrast to the City Council in December 1958 when, at its last meeting, pleasantries were exchanged. Today, Sir, we find that there has been a lot of mud-slinging. This is not right, and I would urge everyone of us here to try not to end this meeting after this four-year session on a note of anger or hatred. But let us part as friends and go to the elections and see the best people win. So far as I am concerned, I have been attending many of the All-Party meetings. I think the last All-Party meeting was one concerning posters-drawing up regulations for the poster campaign that is to come. We on this side of the House do take in opinions of all other Parties, especially when the matter concerns everybody. Not only did we discuss all matters concerning posters very sanely, but we also gave everybody ample opportunity to amend, add to, or subtract from all those regulations.

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar's anxiety, that in all probability things may not be right with the Ministers at the helm, I would like to say a bit more. This motion coming in at this hour does not seem right. All along throughout these four years there had been opportunities when the Government could have been opposed, and there was at one time a real danger of the Government toppling over should the Opposition combine their votes. We have read all that in the papers. There was some bit of truth in what the Member for Telok Ayer had said about 15 Members on one side and 17 on the other. But I would like to recall those incidents at the time when Government was in real danger.

It has many a time been saved by the People's Action Party! That was three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, or four years ago. There is no denial that the Member for Tanjong Pagar was a very good friend of the Member for Havelock, and I think they are still very good friends. I know that they have conferred with each other on all important issues. They have been old friends; they have come to conclusions. successfully and peacefully on so many things; they have trusted each other throughout all these four years; there is no harm in trusting each other again for the next two months. I would say that trusting the Member for Havelock and the elected Ministers would be far better than leaving matters with the officials. I think, if the Member for Tanjong Pagar withdraws his motion and allows matters to rest there, it will be more in keeping with the aspirations of the people of Singapore and his own desire throughout all these years.

There have been doubts whether the elections will be fought clean or dirty. I would like to say that, whether it be clean or dirty, it will depend upon the leaders of all the political parties. The Government has seen fit to appoint a committee with the Chief Secretary as Chairman to look into such matters. And if all leaders are determined and will carry out their promises to fight the elections clean, then I am certain there will be no dirt, or at least less dirt. I have been really distressed by the spate of breaking of promises. Every time you make your promise to your friends, you seem to swear by anything - probably the coconut palm in front of your house! And you break your promise the next moment. What is said in the most serious tone and in moments which you should never forget in all your life :s broken, just broken. I am alarmed at that, and I hope that whatever new promises we make, we should make it a point to keep them and to honour them. The Member for Changi has touched on a lot of things and on clause 30. I am touching on it now because I happened to be a member of the five-man delegation. There have been many questions put to me. I have not uttered a word, and I want to make it clear here that I am not uttering a word on that matter. It has been a promise. If somebody says something, it is up to his own conscience to say whether it is true or not. If the other person is at the receiving end, it will be up to his conscience to feel whether it hurts or it does not hurt. I, on my part, will keep to my part of the bargain. Sir -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of information, Sir!

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, just now I was more than pleased to hear the Member for Serangoon touch on my statement regarding clause 30. He said he was going to say something more, but he had not uttered a word. I have not heard any truth coming out from his mouth!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever I say will be enough

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Clause 30!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Clause 30? Let the people who are concerned sleep with their conscience.

Sir, just now I was really distressed to hear what our hon. friend, Mr Francis Thomas, had to say. I certainly feel that he had said the wrong thing at the wrong moment when he was in the wrong position. A lot has been said about him by other Members, and I would say, "I shall add no more."

5.20 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is verily the end, and I do not think anybody in this House is sorry to see the end of it. Four years - some grew up, many did not. Sir, I do not like people talking in riddles. In this last sitting I want to place the issues fairly and squarely.

First, this new smear that the Member for Serangoon is trying that he was also a party to this magnificent bargain; that he was also at this meeting.

Sir, let me get the position clear. According to the Chief Minister, he and I went to see the Colonial Secretary and we got clause 30 in. According to the Member for Serangoon, he is keeping his mouth shut. He is not saying anything, but we can imply the worst. Let us get the facts straight. I challenge the Chief Minister to swear on oath that I and he went to see Mr Lennox-Boyd to get clause 30 in, or to discuss clause 30, or to see Mr Lennox-Boyd at all. He knows that it is not true, but he was not big enough to be-

Mr Lim Choon Mong rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon was so very cagey about what he was going to say or what he was not going to say. He sounded more like an old gypsy lady looking into the crystal ball. I would ask him to take his crystal ball home, polish it up, and perhaps meet us at election time at the 5� m.s. Serangoon, as we are going to hold an election rally there this Sunday.

I want to get these facts clear. Through all the twists and turns of the last four years, there was one mistake I never committed, and that was to give hostages, and the Chief Minister knew that I was not a stupid man. But he did not know that I thought that he was a very wily operator and never gave him a hostage. I think the words which he said at Queenstown, when he went down to open some private meeting at some fire station, and which were reported subsequently in Monday morning's newspapers, were the absolute truth. If you call me a fool or call us fools, we will not deny it. That is true, because he was left carrying the baby. Sir, I make no apologies for this. I am completely unabashed that, partly from moderation of policy and partly through ability in gauging our opponents accurately, we have survived.

The Chief Minister is different from his predecessor. His predecessor was a flamboyant, flashy man, who likes to shout and who likes to mess up things - very messy! The present Chief Minister is different. He is quiet, small, unobtrusive, cracks jokes, plays practical jokes, puts balls into pockets and takes them out. But he is a very deep fellow, and I knew that. I say this to him. I am sorry that he was left holding the baby. But he knew very well that when he opened fire in October 1956, he had been outmanoeuvred by the British. That is the real position. From then onwards it was check and counter check on the chess board. Today he knows as well as I do that we have been able to establish a position where we can only be scrubbed off the race, not by him, but by the British. He could have scrubbed us out in 1957, but he did not. For that, we have to thank Mr Gerald de Cruz, Organising Secretary, who advised him that he could absorb us.

Let us put the issues fairly and squarely before we go to the polls. The Chief Minister knows we are a non-Communist force, in fact, a vital and dynamic force better than his. But because we cannot make accommodation for him, he has, on the one hand, appeared to smear us as Communists, and on the other hand, tried to ask the Communists not to support us by saying I went with him and did a dirty and dishonourable thing. Since he is going down anyway, why not bring the whole house down? He is beyond redemption. So why not implicate me? I put the issue very fairly to him. It is not sufficient to kill Lee Kuan Yew, because the P.A.P. is a movement bigger than Lee Kuan Yew. It has got more than Lee Kuan Yew. I say this too: that if in four years he had succeeded in making a coherent group out of his collection of prize-fighters, he might have got somewhere, but he did not. Finally cornered, he says, "All right, on the one hand, in fact, Lee was an anti-Communist who conspired with me with the Archbishop of Colonialism"; on the other hand, at the end of his speech, he says, "Ah, but watch out, all good nationalists! Let us come together and bang the P.A.P.!" Make up his mind. Which way is he going to shoot? Because the Communists are not kidded in this. They know exactly what we are, what we stand for, what we are going to fight for. And neither are the British kidded.

I hope, before we depart - many of us perhaps never to return - that we have understood what has been happening. Why we had such a motley collection of people in the last Council, and why there was no improvement in this present one. The reason was because in 1945 the Malayan Communist Party led the anti-Colonial movement, and all those who hated Colonialism were absorbed into it, including a number of my personal friends. In 1948, there was an armed revolt and they led an anti-Colonial struggle, and we had the first assembly of handpicked men - weak, wishy-washy types who never made the grade, except the Member for Havelock. The British gave a further concession in 1951. I had the privilege of being an election agent for one of the candidates. If ever the British believed that these sort of people were going to build a fortress for democracy in this part of the world, they must have been extremely stupid. But then, at that time, they had the Rt. Hon. Mr Malcolm MacDonald as High Commissioner, and he praised Bao Dai as a great democrat. So I expect he believed Mr C. C. Tan would have been an even greater democrat. Came 1955, and they were all swept into the limbo.

The Labour Front did not win because it was a powerful force. The Labour Front won on the pure anti-Colonial, anti-Colonial stooges movement. And I will be the first to admit that when the P.A.P. wins, it is not because of the strength and organisation of the P.A.P. alone. Behind it lies the whole history of the struggle against the British, and now a struggle for the destiny of this country. It is no use for the Chief Minister trying at this stage to switch his horses and say, "Ah, but you know, Lee is really an anti-Communist with us." The Chief Minister fights the Communists on paper, on books and manuscripts handed to him. I see all kinds of books when we go to conferences in his office. I do not think that I am breaching any Official Secrets Act when I say that one of them is called Positive Thinking by some moral rearmament fellow. I say that we should all do some positive thinking now. I have not read the book but I am sure that it will do everybody a world of good to read such books. The Communists have no illusions and they know what the P.A.P. stands for. They do not have to be told by the Chief Minister what the P.A.P. is, what its leaders believe in, and what its leaders intend to do. In fact, they know better than the Chief Minister what we stand for, and so does the British Government. In four years, all the cards have been laid on the table and the reason why I say there is now a distinction between the British officials and the elected Ministers is because one is calculating on a long-term basis and the other is calculating for the morrow. The British fully understand that we are anti-British, that we are anti-colonialism, and that we will do a lot of things which they will find unpleasant. But they also understand, whether they like us or not, we are the only force outside the Communist group that is able to muster mass support - the only coherent group that does not have to apologise for itself. No P.A.P. members in the leadership have hurled recriminations at each other. That is the first lesson in the A.B.C. of politics. I will never denounce my colleague and my colleague will never denounce me, whatever our differences. Because we have a higher common political objective. But these people on the opposite side have only one objective. It is not a political objective. Their objective is loot, and when the loot is not shared properly, then there is trouble.

I can assure the Chief Minister that we can go to the polls and take on any smear he wants to start. But I am glad at least that he realised that he spoke out of turn when he said that he was going to play dirty politics. Now he has qualified it by saying that it was just talk. He meant that since I had breached a secret, he was going to breach a secret. That is a falsehood. There was no breach of any undertaking I gave him. He offered a Chew Swee Kee resignation if I went soft. I had a full Central Executive Committee meeting that afternoon to make a decision, because we do not make these decisions by ourselves, and I went back with a mandate to tell him that if he resigned, we would not press for the Commission but we would have to state the facts. What happened was that he found the facts too painful and he said, "Right, counter by a smear."

He said that there had not been a denial from the Colonial Office. Sir, let me read him the A.F.P. of 11th March - not that it is all that important whether there was a denial or not. He knows, to begin with, that I was not such a stupid man. I am still friendly with him. I never quarrel with people for no reason. He is unlike Mr Marshall. He is the quiet stiletto type. Mr Marshall takes a big stick, chases you around and threatens to beat you; and when the awful moment comes, he drops the stick. But it is not so with our Chief Minister. He carries a knife and he likes to do a neat clean job, like that [Indicating]. The last thing I would give him was a chance to plunge the knife. However, this is for his information:

"Attention herewith. Re-run of exclusive item for Singapore Press. Colonial Office denial. London, March 10, A.F.P.

The Colonial Office today categorically denied reports appearing in the Singapore Press according to which the clause dealing with subversion in the Constitution of Singapore was inserted as a result of a secret understanding between the Colonial Secretary. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd, the People's Action Party leader, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Chief Minister, Mr Lim Yew Hock...".

I believe that the Chief Minister has been quick enough to get back to the Colonial Office and ask the Colonial Secretary himself to keep quiet about this. One day when the elections are over, Mr Lennox-Boyd will be able to tell the world whether or not he met the Chief Minister and me at a secret meeting to arrange this; and the Chief Minister knows in his heart that the answer is 'No'. But he is angry because he has now let himself in for something really big in that he has said that I conspired and that we perpetrated a fraud in this Assembly. I went and fought the by-election for the P.A.P., Sir, to justify the Constitution when, in fact, Mr Marshall was going to take the Member for Havelock for a run. We knew what we were doing. Furthermore, he knew full well that, despite all the civilities of life, there is a basic difference between him and us, of a degree so great as to make it a difference of kind. I respect him because he has guts, whatever his motivations may be. Of the lot in front of us, there were only two persons who did not take the fright. One was a foolish man, the hon. Mr Chew Swee Kee. He could fight, but he fought for different reasons and different motives. But he had guts. The Chief Minister is another man. I know when I am dealing with a man with guts, and I know when I am dealing with a coward. I know when I am dealing with a man with intensity of purpose, and I know when I am dealing with a dilettante. I do not want to waste the time of this House answering the Member for Changi who wants to challenge me. He should challenge the guy who is going to the moon.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Come on!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is a waste of time. The Member for Bukit Timah and I looking him up in the middle of the night! Well, I am glad that in his dreams he imagined that he was such an important person and that we did try to inveigle him into something which he thought was dishonest. But all this is a waste of time.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of order. Please allow me to say that what I said was true and whether he likes it or not, he can meet me in the coming elections, whether he chooses to fight me in Changi or - as I have repeated it many times - anywhere.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot find the point of order. I know that the Member for Changi is very keen on a certain challenge but that is not a point of order.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is not rising on a point of order, he cannot hide behind rising on a point of order. It must be a point of order. Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker. Sir, there was, I thought, a supremely happy phrase used by the Director of Information Services. He said appropriately at a Rotary luncheon that we shall know who are the donkeys and who are the thoroughbreds on Nomination Day, and I should hate to be ruled out of order if I were asked to classify the Member for Changi.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: As I was saying-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Changi is very anxious to clarify something. May I then remind him of Standing Order 30, paragraph 4, which reads:

"A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not introduce new matter."

If, after the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar sits down, the Member for Changi claims that he has been misunderstood in some material part of his speech, he can then speak.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: That may well be so, Sir, because I do not understand donkey language.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting very near the edge. I do not suppose it is proper to allege that the hon. Member speaks donkey language. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that expression.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Very well, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you think even such an oblique reference objectionable.

Sir, as far as the Members on the other side are concerned, they think they are fighting a group of individuals. They think if they knock out Lee Kuan Yew or besmirch him, or knock out Ong Eng Guan, they can pack us up. It is not Lee Kuan Yew whom they have to fight. They have to fight a coherent group which has built up a movement that has got people who are prepared to work, to make it into a movement. And the British understand this. That is the reason why we survived. They understand that if they snuff us out, then the one decent group that has been able to muster and rally support and recruits will go over. If not us, those who follow us would go over and join the Communists and bang the system. The fight here in Singapore and in the Federation is a fight to preserve the democratic system. On that we are agreed. We talk of democratic forces. Mr Chew Swee Kee was one. The tragedy of those who talk about democratic forces in reference to anti-Communism is this: that the word "democratic" is not synonymous with anti-Communism, because otherwise they would have to avow Syngman Rhee as the most democratic man in the world. Nobody pretends that. If you are relentlessly pressed until finally you have no support but the corrupt, the crooked, who only want money, who are prepared to use their power positions ruthlessly to maintain the "democratic" system and suppress the Communists, then I would say the battle is lost. The battle in Malaya has not been lost. In my opinion, whether we succeed or fail in the end will depend upon whether we can recruit people into the movement. And when I say people, I do not mean scallywags, rogues and vagabonds. I mean those who are prepared to stake their lives and their energies for a cause. If all the able people coming out from your Chinese Middle schools, from Nan Ta, even from the University of Malaya, opt for the Communist movement, then I say in ten or fifteen years' time the battle is near-lost. Then you have the Member for Cairnhill shouting about democracy and democratic force, when one of his supporters has just had some trouble with somebody at the Esplanade. Then you have an inquiry by the Elias Commission, and all kinds of curious things happen. When you reach that point, then naked military dictatorship is upon us.

This position has been thrust upon us. If we were given the choice, we would have preferred to work on the ground for many more years to build the movement up, because he who runs the country and holds the gun is at a disadvantage. I explained all this to the Chief Minister in October 1956, when he opened fire with a double barrel, and he said, "Oh, it is not the British. It is I that is doing it." He took the gun and fired! I do not think he knew what it was all about. I believe he now begins to understand that he lost the propaganda battle. That when he opened fire and lost, his Special Branch told him, "They're Communists." The people on whom he opened fire and their friends were able to turn it and say, "He opened fire on Chinese culture, civilization,..." etc., etc.; till today he is trying to explain that he did not do that. But the battle has already been lost! That is why we are really not interested in whether they call themselves S.P.A. or any other alphabetical combination; the battle is over, disappeared.

We are concerned because the problem for us is not the winning of the elections but the survival of the system after having won the elections; because if we go the road that the Labour Front, the S.P.A. and the Lib-Socs travel, then verily we shall perish as they have done. But whatever the odds, I can assure Members on the Government side of this: that what happens in five years' time - win or lose - we would not make such a disreputable sight. We would, if we have to go down after five years for holding the gun with the Tunku and his troops in the north, the Communists on the ground, the British squatting over us, we would do so honourably, we will not yelp. I have no desire for power. The last thing we want to do is to grab power, because this is not a playful matter. Power is not something to be bargained for and handed over the counter. It has to be fought for, held and won. My honest admission is that, although vis-a-vis the whole lot of these so-called S.P.A., Lib-Socs, and what-have-you can just be knocked out with the rap of a finger, it is another thing in fighting the Communist movement. You do not fight it just by guns. The Chief Minister believed he was fighting it by just knocking-

Mr Speaker: Order. All this is very interesting, but perhaps the hon. Member would try and relate it to the motion.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me in what is perhaps the last sitting before we do our courtesies to you, you will appreciate that I am really putting the cards on the table, as I had intended to do from the beginning. And

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member will be the first one to assist the Speaker, as far as possible, by keeping to the Standing Orders.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I will be the first one to assist you in your duties, Sir.

Every time Members opposite talk, they talk about individuals. The tragedy with them is that after four years, they are a collection of individuals. Mr Chew got $500,000 and went away. When lie went away, they all said, "I know nothing about it." He got away as an individual. But that is not the way to build the political force. There are no individuals in the P.A.P. When you fight one, you fight all. And that is what a lot of people are discovering. When you fight the Mayor, you fight the whole Central Executive. When you fight Lee Kuan Yew, you are not fighting Lee Kuan Yew; you are fighting the whole organized movement of the P.A.P.

I would like them to be a Right-wing force-organized, coherent-like the Tory Party who have a full-time organisation who can churn up pamphlets, catch-words like "property-owning democracy", ideas.

But what do they come out with? Wang Tsun Hao, Secretary-General: according to the Member for Queenstown, whoever is the Secretary-General must be an important fellow. I believe Mr Wang Tsun Hao must be an important fellow. First, he mounted the Workers' Party platform, and he denounced the Labour Front. Then something went wrong; it did not look good; and he did the opposite.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member must realise that all this is completely irrelevant to the motion.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just bear with me, you will find the relevance of it when I nail it at the end. Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order. Possibly the hon. Member had better start nailing it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Well, I shall put the first nails in.

Sir, the reason why we decided to call for the Government's resignation is because we found it difficult to believe, after the exhibition of the Chief Minister on the 4th of March, that he would play the game according to the rules of the Constitution. And when the pressure became acute, and the boat began to sink, even if he did not do so, the collection of unsavoury people in his Party surrounding his members in this Assembly who are all very savory people, would use unsavoury methods in his name. He knows that! That happened in Kallang. I did not accuse him of arranging for the Labour Front car to be fortuitously loaded with iron bars and bicycle chains, and for two of our chaps to be stabbed in Jalan Besar. I knew he had not. If I believed for one moment that he had anything to do with it, there would have been a hue and cry. I quietly acknowledged that he perhaps knew nothing about it. But those things were done in his name, and they could be done, because so-and-so could say, "Ah, don't worry; we have got the Chief Minister. He will settle anything for you." That is a fact, and he knew it. He said, "We never use our Ministerial positions." Perhaps not consciously. We always put in favourable construction on their actions. The Chief Minister said he went to one polling station in the capacity of a polling agent. Sir, I think that is a very dangerous remark to make, because, to my knowledge, I saw him walking to a polling station, look around, and come out. And I, the election agent of the opposing candidate, could not do it, because I was not a Minister! But never mind, Sir.

The result of today's debate only confirms what for a long time we have already suspected. We are not saying that his side consists all of evil men who want evil. But I say there are many dangerous characters and, in times of crisis, they would resort to dirty tactics. And he will not be able to stop them. And he knows that. Sir, the point is: it is our duty to see that whatever happens, after the elections there are stable and sober conditions. The last thing we want is an aftermath and a blood-bath. We do not want to embark on a witch-hunt. I am pressing this point. This is the last sitting. In the course of the election campaign, if my Party members are injured, fingers are cut off, then it will be impossible for me - I will not be able, nor will my whole Committee be able - to put the brakes on; and we will then go down on the slippery slope of a witch-hunt and a vendetta. We do not want that. That is the reason why I have tabled this motion. I am sorry that the suggestion which I threw out in my opening, that they should vacate their office on leave prior to retirement, during the course of the election campaign, was not accepted. I did not want to press this motion if I could have a reasonable assurance that, in fact, there would be no Ministerial use of prestige and influence.

But I am sorry to say that the conduct of the Deputy Chief Minister leaves a very big question mark in my mind. I know he is not here; he is a very angry man sulking away in the C.P.A. Room. He is very angry and very sulky because he believes, just because he and I are also good friends, that I should not state the truth. He has good qualities, but he has one failing, and that is, he gets angry and talkative. He denied that he told the Press this, but after I made the statement this morning - I do not want to be involved in another expose and prove the man a liar; nobody gains by that - he knew as well as anybody else that there were two people in the Gallery this morning (one from the Straits Times and the other from the Singapore Standard) who confirmed at the lunch interval that he had indicated - not in so many words that he was going to fix the City Council! After all, one could indicate a lot of things without words; otherwise animals could not get along with one another. Now, Sir, we do not care. By all means, "Let's fix the City Council." Magnificent! We have a first-class election issue; we will take a big stick to bang the Government and the S.P.A. candidates with. But what we want to avoid at all costs is the civil commotion which may follow when the public feel a bit perplexed, frustrated and angry. My purpose in bringing it out today - the purpose of my Central Executive Committee, after we have had a discussion on this last night - was to tell the public that such a thing is in the air; that if it happens, they should forget it, ignore it, and let the City Council be closed down. But let there be general elections within sixty days of dissolution. Because then we can settle the parent account. I am sorry the Deputy Chief Minister has left a big question mark in all our minds. We can appreciate his anger; after all, much as I would deplore this sort of pique - he walked out of, I believe, a special performance given in honour of the Duke because he was not given a chair-

Mr Speaker: Order. That, of course, is personal conduct outside the Assembly. The hon. Member cannot refer to it at all.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Just because the Minutes were not sent to him as immediately as he thought he was entitled to have them, it does not mean that he can just scrap the City Council. By all means scrub it! But you have to justify it. And I will say this: that we know what is going on, otherwise we would not survive; we knew yesterday what was on the boil. There was Mr Meadows running around; there was the Senior Crown Counsel hovering in the background. They were in conference. I also knew that Mr Carl Schubert, Acting Secretary and Legal Adviser to the City Council, had gone and seen a D.P.P., who confirmed that his interpretation was the correct interpretation; that the Council, and not the Mayor or the C.A.O., should give the Minutes. But these are all technicalities. We knew something was brewing, and we wanted to nip it in the bud. And this is the reason why we say it is absolutely dangerous. The brakes should be put on. If the Chief Minister allows the brakes to go off, then unwittingly he would have embarked on a really hazardous adventure. I do not know whether the brakes are going to be put on or not. I believe they will. That somewhat emotional exhibition of the Deputy Chief Minister this morning probably has stifled any hope, if he had any, of getting his Ministerial colleagues to agree to embark on this perilous journey.

But although we have stifled this one, there are still two and a half months to go before polling day at the end of May. And then it could well be the end of June or the beginning of July. I do not know when the Government intends to advise the Governor about dissolving this Assembly. But the Governor has stated in solemn language that there will be polling within sixty days of the date of dissolution.

Finally, we come to the crux of the point: if the British are prepared for international repercussions and the long-term repercussions of snuffing out a Left-wing democratic movement, then I would say, "We are finished. We are out." We are prepared for that. In which case, I say those who come after us should be well advised to join some other Party. That is our position. We are not interested in obtaining power for the sake of power. As I have explained, there is a difference of degree between the Members in front of me and my colleagues, so great as to make it a difference of kind. Every one of my colleagues, when he goes into the arena, is losing something. They, unlike the gentlemen opposite, know exactly what this is all about. We saw Pandora's Box opened one by one till the smallest and last box, and we are moving forward into position to take over because we have no choice. Because it is the right thing to do by our people. Because if we do not, a collection of scallawags, rogues and vagabonds might get in, and then that is the end of the democratic experiment, and all this nonsense of holding elections will never happen. Then, of course, the British are no longer responsible for internal security. Then we are all in the bag.

That is the reason. Knowing full well what is in that Box, knowing full well that we may never be able to mount a bigger campaign at the end of five years than we do now, and fully aware of all the pitfalls, I suggest to the people of Singapore that we have a better chance of success of making the democratic system work than anybody else. Because we know the price of making it work does not depend on just locking up people who work to build up power, who work to build up popularity. If the Member for Serangoon had the opportunity to work with some of those who have been arrested and banished as Communists, he would know the dedication and the drive that they put on the ground-and they worked like demons. And if he wants to compete, I believe he may because his hands are clean. He is a simple man, although at one time I was afraid Mr Chew Swee Kee was going to subvert him. They went out of London together and departed to some secret destination. I thought that was the end of him. I am glad he has emerged untarnished. But he could not put up a fight. Because you must have drive, and you must believe in it to have drive. And this Government on going down believes in nothing but survival, and for that reason I propose that, regardless of the voting on this Division, they should seriously consider whether or not they should not put themselves in an unassailable position by taking leave. I say, if they want the money, by all means get their pay up to polling day on leave prior to retirement. We all know it is retirement anyway. The Tunku has set an illustrious example. He says: "I can serve the people better working on the ground." The Chief Minister was so carried away as to remark, "We will all be so busy with the elections that we cannot use our Ministerial positions to exercise influence." Well, if that is so, if that is the position honest to God, then what reason is there for remaining in the Ministerial chair? This is the last sitting. We would rather have left them alone because these were just little things. The Chief Minister has now more or less desisted. But only for the time being. He keeps dithering on the brink. I am not sure whether he is as good as Mr Dulles. His friends may push him over the brink. I urge him even after we have departed from this Chamber to reconsider whether he should not put himself beyond doubt and quit Ministerial office after Nomination Day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my motion was couched in what I thought was relatively restrained language. I did not bother to justify the disgust at the loss of public confidence, because I think that was too obvious. But I do ask them in their last few weeks of office, not to bring about more discredit. If they only bring discredit to themselves, it does not matter, but, unfortunately, their discredit may discredit the whole system and the institutions through which subsequently we will have to work. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move my last motion in this Assembly standing in my name.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose-

Mr Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Changi claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In what respect?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I have been misrepresented.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng then took a copy of the Standing Orders and turned over the pages.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Speaker knows the Standing Orders.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: "A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood ...".

Mr Speaker: Does the hon. Member claim to have been misunderstood in a material part of his speech?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: He may speak.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I give my hearty thanks to you for your kind permission in allowing me to clear up certain points.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is not the Speaker who is kind! It is the Standing Order that is kind!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, parliamentary language is very complex. It is just like the crocodile who cannot understand the language of the donkey! Now, the mover of the motion, Sir, touched on three points which I wish to make clear. One is the secret of the midnight visit - we never said "no" or "yes". Second, the opposition of citizenship to be included at the Conference in London in 1956. Third, the brother of the hon. Member for Bukit Timah, Mr Lim Ching Joo, who charged the Special Branch for a great deal of torture. All this I put forward and invite the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar categorically to state whether it is true or not. He not only failed to answer-

Mr Speaker: Order. Probably the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar understood very well. The only trouble is that, I think, he did not reply to those points.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is on a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is not that I did not reply. I stated that it was so baseless, that it came from a person whom I consider inappropriate to reply to.

Mr Speaker: That supports the idea that the speech was very well understood.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, maybe his story of David against Goliath is not true. But maybe the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar is a coward not to accept an invitation.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have had enough of that. Obviously the hon. Member for Changi is not rising under the appropriate Standing Order, and he cannot carry on.

Question put.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 19; Absent, 5; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Goh Chew Chua. Ede, John. Lazarous, A. R. Fergusson, Ewen. Lee Kuan Yew. Goh Tong Liang. Seah Peng Chuan. Jumabhoy, J. M. Thomas, Francis. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Wong Foo Nam. Absent Braga, A. J. David, E. B. Jumabhoy, R. Lim Ching Siong. Abstention Shanks, E. P. Oon Khye Kiang.

Motion accordingly negatived.