REJECTION OF U.M.N.O. APPEAL FOR RELEASE OF MUSLIM PRISONERS (Commission of Inquiry)

4.05 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move,

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission, to be presided over by a High Court Judge, with powers to call upon any Minister and the Members of the staff of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to give evidence, or to cause such a Commission to be appointed, for the purpose of ascertaining the circumstances in which the appeal of U.M.N.O. for the release of Muslim prisoners sentenced in connection with the riots of December 1950 was rejected, and to report as to whether there has been unconstitutional conduct on the part of any and, if so, which Minister of Government and whether any Minister has made any misleading statement to the Press in connection with the rejection, and to make recommendations accordingly,

Mr Speaker, before I go into the reasons in detail as to why I and my colleagues are moving this motion, it is imperative for me to warn this Assembly that this motion is moved not because of sentiment or with the object of inciting communal feelings, but because U.M.N.O. is of the opinion that the Constitution of the State of Singapore at the moment is in danger.

The new Singapore Constitution was promulgated by U.M.N.O. together with other political parties, including the People's Action Party. Mr Speaker, because we promulgated this Constitution, it is our responsibility, therefore, to protect and uphold it. If we from U.M.N.O. do not defend this Constitution which we ourselves promulgated, it means that we have gone against it and also against the people of Singapore. Likewise, Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party. If the P.A.P. refuses to uphold or defend the Constitution which the P.A.P. itself helped to promulgate with us, it means that it has gone against the Constitution, and, consequently, against the interest of the people of Singapore.

The problem before us today concerns the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as contained in the Constitution of Singapore. As we know, in the Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara must be nominated by the Queen from among persons born in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya, and he must be above politics. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara can be said to exercise no function other than that of clemency, as contained in the Constitution of Singapore, Part II, Article No. 9 (i) and (ii). The functions given to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara are mentioned in Government Gazette Supplement No. 32 dated 10th April, 1959, Chapter 2, subsection (a) (ii), which also stated that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has full powers for clemency and the granting of appeals. This clearly shows, Mr Speaker, that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can take a decision himself on the question of granting pardons to people who have been sentenced, and that he can seek advice from anybody else he wishes to. But the most important thing is that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself can take a decision. Therefore that decision should be the decision of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself and not the decision of the Cabinet or the decision of any other Minister. The Cabinet cannot put presure upon the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to take a decision concerning the question of granting a pardon.

The U.M.N.O. of Singapore, Mr Speaker, is not satisfied with what has occurred because the Government has, in our opinion, gone out of its way and acted beyond the powers of the Constitution which will result in unfair government. Any conduct outside the scope of the Constitution is dangerous. The danger is not only to the Government but also to all the people of Singapore.

At this moment the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is a foreigner, and his mistake can be an example to the future Yang di-Pertuan Negara, one who will be appointed from among the people of this country. U.M.N.O. does not want this mistake to be repeated again in future. In this matter we do not know whether or not the Yang di-Pertuan Negara deliberately collaborated with the Government in power.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member knows Standing Order 31 (8) which reads:

"The conduct of Her Majesty, Members of the Royal Family or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall not be referred to in any circumstances,"

Therefore, I think the hon. Member is treading on very thin ice when he queries the conduct of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in this matter. I think he should confine himself to the constitutional position and nothing more.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, actually I only wish to draw attention to the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am not accusing or making any allegation against him.

Mr Speaker, U.M.N.O. wishes to point out to this House where and how the inadvertency has arisen. In 1950, a riot occurred. This was the result of dissatisfaction with the judgment which was considered by the people of Singapore to be not in the spirit of justice and fair play. Five people were sentenced to death. U.M.N.O. at that time came forward to defend these five persons, with the result that the death sentences were commuted to life sentences. In 1956, U.M.N.O. again came forward and appealed to the then Governor, Sir Robert Black, to reduce the sentences. This was successful. In this connection, I am pleased to say that at that time, as head of U.M.N.O., I played a leading role in the whole affair. Therefore, Mr Speaker, up to today the five people referred to just now have served their sentences for almost nine years. Therefore, with the birth of the new nation of Singapore, with a new outlook, a new atmosphere and with promise and hopes - all new to the people of Singapore - U.M.N.O. has taken the opportunity to appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the balance of the sentence period to be abolished.

On the 5th of June, 1959, U.M.N.O. wrote a letter to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I would like to read it so that this House will know what it is about. It says:

"To His Excellency, Sir William Goode, Yang di-Pertuan Negara, Singapore:

Your Excellency,

I have been directed by members of the Emergency Committee of U.M.N.O., Singapore, to appeal to you to grant a pardon to the five Muslim prisoners, who are still serving sentences of death in connection with the Nadra riots in December, 1950. Members of this committee are of the opinion that to commemorate the birth of the new nation of Singapore, this will be a blessing to the people of Singapore who are the followers of Islam.

Thanking you,

(Sgd.) Abdul Hamid Allwie, Chairman of the Emergency Committee, U.M.N.O., Singapore."

On the 6th, following upon the letter, U.M.N.O., Singapore, received a letter from the Acting Private Secretary of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, addressed to the Chairman, Inche Abdul Hamid Allwie, of the Emergency Committee, Singapore.

"I am directed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to bring to your attention your letter, ref. P.E.N./1/59, dated 5th June, 1959, appealing to His Excellency for the release of the five Muslim prisoners, who are at the present moment still serving in Changi.

For your information, the matter is still under consideration and a reply will be made known to you."

Mr Speaker, we, the Committee and members of U.M.N.O.-were full of hopes that our appeal would be considered justly and given proper consideration. But, unfortunately, suddenly on the 8th of July this year, U.M.N.O. received a letter from the Ministry of Labour and Law, signed by the State Advocate-General and addressed to Inche Abdul Hamid Allwie. It reads: "Sir,

I am directed by the Minister for Labour and Law to refer to your letter Ref. P.E.N./ 1/59, dated the 5th June, 1959, addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and to state that the Minister has given full consideration to your request, but regrets that he is unable to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant any further clemency to the Muslim prisoners referred to in your letter."

Mr Speaker, there is no necessity for me to explain how dejected members of U.M.N.O. and people of the Muslim faith in Singapore felt on receipt of this letter. It appears that the Minister for Labour and Law had arrogated to himself the functions and powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Therefore, it would appear that the Minister had committed an act which was in contravention of and against the spirit of the Constitution of Singapore. U.M.N.O.'s letter of appeal was addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his consideration and decision; but according to the letter from the State Advocate-General (or from the Minister himself), it shows that the Minister for Labour and Law had considered U.M.N.O.'s appeal and that he himself had taken the decision to reject U.M.N.O.'s appeal. As explained in his letter, he was unable to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant a pardon to the five prisoners mentioned in the letter. So the conduct of the Minister for Labour and Law is one example of an act which is outside the scope of the Constitution. We from U.M.N.O., Mr Speaker, oppose it strongly because U.M.N.O. does not want to collaborate with and be an accomplice in such conduct towards the Constitution of Singapore and the people of Singapore.

Further, on the 30th July, there was a statement issued in the Straits Times made in English. The statement came from the Ministry of Labour and Law. The Minister for Labour and Law said that he did not make any kind of decision, that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself had taken the decision, and that the decision was relayed to the person concerned through his Ministry. The Minister further stated that the letter of appeal was sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara; that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had asked for the advice of the Cabinet; the Cabinet had advised him in the matter; and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had decided that the grant of appeal could not be considered. The decision of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was relayed through the Ministry of Labour and Law, because this Ministry is responsible in matters that concern laws, and is under the instructions of the Minister for Labour and Law. Therefore, the State Advocate-General had communicated the decision to the person concerned.

That is the statement from the Minister for Labour and Law. In his statement there were two points which are misleading. One, that the Minister stated that he had not taken the decision himself. The decision was made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and this decision was conveyed through the Minister for Labour and Law. Now, Mr Speaker, which is true? Is it the letter from the Minister for Labour and Law, or is it the statement issued in the Press? This we do not know. According to the letter, it is clear here that it is the Ministry which considered the appeal and that the Ministry itself was unable to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

But in the Press it is stated that the decision was taken by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Secondly, the newspapers quoted the statement from the Ministry of Labour and Law to the effect that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had asked for advice from the Cabinet and the Cabinet had advised the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But in the letter of the Minister for Labour and Law, it states that the Minister for Labour himself considered U.M.N.O.'s appeal and the Minister himself had advised the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But in the newspapers, the Minister for Labour stated that the person who considered the matter and who advised the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was the Cabinet. Therefore, which is correct? Is it the letter or is it the statement issued by the Minister for Labour and Law? This is a question that needs to be answered. It further shows that the statement of the Minister quoted in the Press and the letter from the Minister for Labour and Law contradicted each other. If the statement in the Straits Times is correct, then the letter is incorrect. If the letter is correct, then it means that the Minister for Labour and Law has proved that he had arrogated to himself the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. And if this letter is correct and the statement is therefore wrong, then it means that the Minister for Labour and Law had issued a statement which was irresponsible and false.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, on this matter there are many questions which we and U.M.N.O. would like to ask the Government. Did the Yang di-Pertuan Negara ask for the advice of the Cabinet? That is the first question. The second question is: Did the Cabinet convey their advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? The third question is: Did the Yang di-Pertuan Negara convey his decision to the Minister for Labour and Law in reply to the letter from U.M.N.O.? The fourth question is, and this is most important: Why did the Yang di-Pertuan Negara not reply direct to U.M.N.O., as he had done so on the 5th of June, 1959? The fifth question is: Why is it that the Minister for Labour and Law, in his letter addressed to U.M.N.O., failed to mention that he had received instructions from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? On the other hand, it was the State Advocate-General who conveyed to U.M.N.O. the decision of the Ministry of Labour and Law, as I explained just now. The sixth question is: Was the advice of the Minister for Labour and Law, as contained in the letter to U.M.N.O., in fact conveyed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? And finally, question number seven: Did the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself make the decision, as contained in the statement of the Minister for Labour in the Straits Times? Was it the result of the advice of the Cabinet, or from the Minister for Labour and Law himself?

U.M.N.O. is of the opinion that this question of appeal had failed to receive proper and just consideration from the Government in power, and that in this matter the powers and responsibilities of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had been polluted by the political party in power in Singapore. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara of the Government of Singapore has created a precedent which is against the spirit and principle of the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, I appeal to all the Members of the Assembly, in the interest of the Constitution of the State of Singapore and of the people of Singapore, to see that the people's ambition of fair play and justice is achieved. As Members of this House and representatives of the people of Singapore, it is our responsibility to accept U.M.N.O.'s challenge to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to consider the merits and demerits, the wrongs and the rights, of this case so that if we had gone astray at the end of the road, we should go back to the beginning of the road in order that we may not go astray altogether.

4.30 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by my colleague just now, because this is the responsibility given by U.M.N.O. to its representatives in this Assembly - to bring to the notice of this House matters which have caused dissatisfaction particularly to U.M.N.O. and generally to those people in Singapore who embrace Islam.

On this issue, if we turn back to the incidents in 1950, we will naturally come to the conclusion that these incidents will not occur again in Singapore. For that reason, U.M.N.O. has thought over this matter and appealed to the Government in power to rectify the mistakes which have been made by a certain group and the confusion which they have caused. I said earlier that this matter concerns the release of the prisoners on whose behalf U.M.N.O. made an appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant a pardon in the hope that the wound which was caused in 1950 will be healed now that Singapore is a self-governing State with a Constitution which has the support of all the people. But as the Malay saying goes: if the prisoners are suffering, it does not mean that the wounds have been healed.

Mr Speaker: I hate interrupting this debate, but I must keep the debate in the proper channel, and I must ask the hon. Member not to go into the merits of the petition for the release of the prisoners. The debate is merely concerned with a constitutional point and I have to inform the hon. Member and all other hon. Members of this House that I will insist on that line alone being taken, and that is, debate on the constitutional point only.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to bring to the attention of this House how great is the responsibility on the question which we must consider, but because of your ruling, Mr Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the incidents which had occurred. I will speak directly on the motion brought by U.M.N.O. for a Commission of Inquiry to be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the circumstances of the case and to give its opinion as to which side is right and which is wrong.

As has been explained earlier by my colleague, the exchange of correspondence originated with U.M.N.O.'s letter dated 5th June, 1959, addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. On 6th June, U.M.N.O. received a letter from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara stating that the matter of appeal addressed to him was under consideration. On the 8th July, U.M.N.O. received a letter from the State Advocate-General stating that he had been directed by the Minister for Labour and Law to reply to U.M.N.O.'s letter dated 5th June, 1959, addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and was to state that the Minister for Labour and Law had given full consideration to it but regretted that he was unable to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant any further clemency to the Muslim prisoners. With regard to the letter from the State Advocate-General, it is most confusing as explained just now whether the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself or the Minister for Labour and Law gave the decision to reject U.M.N.O.'s appeal.

Therefore. Mr Speaker, as I emphasised at the beginning of my speech, the Government should take a serious view of this matter so as to allay fears and misunderstanding and the loss of confidence of the public in the Government today.

Question proposed.

4.41 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, on 5th June, 1959, the President of the Emergency Committee of the Singapore U.M.N.O. addressed a petition in English - it is not their official language - to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara asking for clemency and for the immediate release of certain Muslim prisoners now in Changi Gaol who were sentenced to death and reprieved in connection with the Nadra riots in December, 1950. I will read the letter - it was not in the national language-

Mr Speaker: Is that relevant?

Mr Byrne: The United Malays National Organisation-

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether that repeated comment about the national language is in fact relevant. Perhaps the Minister could contain himself.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, with due respect, I think the letter was read out to the Assembly just now in Malay but it is very important that-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member chose to speak in Malay and therefore he was entitled to interpret any English letter into Malay. If he interpreted wrongly, the Minister can indicate how wrong he was.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the same day, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara passed the petition to the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration, and it was acknowledged by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Secretariat.

On the 9th of June, Mr Speaker, the Secretary of the Malay Seamen's Union of Singapore addressed a petition in Malay to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara which stated that the Malay Seamen's Union supported the U.M.N.O. in appealing for the release of certain Muslim prisoners who were serving sentences in connection with the Nadra riots of 1950. This petition went on to say: "The eight P.A.P. leaders who were recently released on the orders of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had been detained because of political activities and therefore those Serving sentences because of their part in the Nadra riots should also be released because they too were political detainees."

The petition was forwarded by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration.

Mr Speaker, on 15th June, one of the Muslim prisoners concerned dissociated himself from what the Singapore U.M.N.O. was doing, in a letter which he wrote from Changi Prison to the Tunku in Kuala Lumpur. This letter was routed through the Superintendent of Changi Prison and a copy was sent to the Minister for Home Affairs and reached me later. I shall read this letter.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hate to interrupt, but I would ask the Minister to observe what I said a moment ago, and that is to try to keep this debate to the constitutional point only, and not on the merits of the petition itself, because the motion itself merely raises a constitutional issue.

Mr Byrne: If that is so, Mr Speaker, I can only say that the third letter did, in fact, dissociate one of the prisoners from the action that was being taken by the Singapore U.M.N.O. with regard to this matter.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, it will be noted that the petitions were for the remission of the whole of the sentences which these Muslim prisoners are now serving. Under section 9 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, the power to remit any sentence is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I would refer to section 9, Mr Speaker, which states:-

"The Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as occasion shall arise, may, in Her Majesty's name and on Her Majesty's behalf

(iii) remit the whole or any part of any such sentence or of any penalty or forfeiture otherwise due to Her Majesty:".

That is provided for in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. That is the provision of the Order in Council which the Member for Geylang Serai referred to just now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the exercise of the powers conferred on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by the Order in Council is regulated by the Royal Instructions. The Member for Geylang Serai has never known this. I will now enlighten him about these Instructions. Mr Speaker, clause 2 (a) of these Instructions provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall consult with the Cabinet (or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet) in the exercise of all powers, authorities and functions conferred on him by or under the Order or by or under any other law for the time being in force in Singapore other than any power, authority or function which is expressed (in whatever terms) to be exercisable by him in his discretion.

Now, the Royal Instructions, Mr Speaker, go on to say, in clause 2, sub-clause (d), that even in a case where the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has any power to be exercised by him in his discretion, he must act in accordance with any constitutional convention applicable to the exercise of any similar power, authority or function by the Queen in the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of these provisions of the Royal Instructions is that the exercise of the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the remission of sentences under the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, even if exercisable at his discretion, must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional convention applicable to the exercise of a similar power by the Queen in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the convention is that a pardon leading to the remission of sentence is granted by the Queen only when such a remission is approved by the Home Secretary. My authority for so saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the book on "The Home Office" in the new Whitehall series which was written by Sir Frank Newton, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I refer, Mr Speaker, Sir, to page 114 of this book. In Chapter 11, entitled "The Royal Prerogative of Mercy", it is stated that the prerogative of mercy is exercised in England and Wales on the advice of the Home Secretary.

Shortly defined, it is the prerogative of relieving an offender of all or some of the consequences of the conviction in, or a sentence or penalty imposed by, the Criminal Courts. The prerogative may be exercised by the grant of free pardons, conditional pardons and remissions. The note on remissions states that a remission reduces the amount of a sentence or penalty without changing its character, as when a sentence of imprisonment is reduced from twelve months to eight months or a fine of �6 is reduced by half.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of the petition of U.M.N.O., the question of the remission of sentence was referred by H.E. the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to the Ministry of Home Affairs, which in turn passed the matter on for consideration to the Ministry of Labour and Law which is concerned with legal matters relating to petitions for the remission of sentences. The petition was then submitted by the Minister for Labour and Law to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet was asked to consider the petition and advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara whether or not to accede to the appeal for clemency. The Cabinet decided to advise H.E. the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that no clemency should be shown to the prisoners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to disclose that, on the 6th of July, I officially informed him that the Cabinet had considered the petitions of the President of the Emergency Committee of U.M.N.O., Singapore, and the Secretary of the Malay Seamen's Union, and had decided to advise him that there was no reason for showing clemency to these Muslim prisoners as they were convicted on criminal charges and their cases were unlike those of the political detainees who were recently released.

I also attached draft letters which were to be sent by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's secretary to the President of the Emergency Committee of U.M.N.O. and the Secretary of the Malay Seamen's Union, informing them of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's decision - that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had decided to act in accordance with the advice which he had received from the Cabinet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 7th of July I received the following minute from His Excellency:-

"Minister,

Accordingly, please, I think it would be more in accordance with the new Constitution for the reply to go from your Ministry, written by the direction of the Minister, informing the petitioners that the Minister has given full consideration to their request but regrets he is unable to advise His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant any further clemency. This would be in line with U.K. practice."

On the 8th of July, the State Advocate-General wrote the following letter to the President of the Emergency Committee of U.M.N.O.:- "Sir, I am directed by the Minister for Labour and Law to refer to your letter, ref: P.E.N./ 1/59, dated 5th June, 1959, addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and to state that the Minister has given full consideration to your request but regrets that he is unable to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant any further clemency to the Muslim prisoners referred to in your letter. (Sd.) State Advocate-General."

It will be seen, therefore, that the reply was sent in this form at the express wish of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself after he had considered the petition and had decided to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I pointed out earlier, the power to remit a sentence is a discretionary power vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by the Order in Council, and not in the Cabinet. In exercising this power by the Royal Instructions, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara must act in accordance with the convention applicable in such cases in the United Kingdom. In this case, he acted in accordance with the convention applicable to petitions for remission of sentences in the United Kingdom and took the advice of the Cabinet not to show any clemency. The petitioners were so informed in the manner suggested by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself. There was no question, therefore, of the Minister for Labour and Law arrogating to himself the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in regard to these petitions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 30th of July a report appeared in the Straits Times stating that at the Press conference at U.M.N.O. headquarters, Inche Abdul Hamid released a letter from the State Advocate-General, and the text of this letter is reproduced in this report. I will read it, Sir:-

`"I am directed by the Minister for Labour and Law to refer to your letter dated June 5 addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and to state that the Minister has given it his full consideration, but regrets that he is unable to grant any further clemency to the Muslim prisoners."'

That, Mr Speaker, is a complete fabrication of the truth. The letter that was written, reads as follows:-

"I am directed by the Minister for Labour and Law to refer to your letter addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and to state that the Minister has given full consideration to your request but regrets that he is unable to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to grant any further clemency to the Muslim prisoners referred to in your letter."

That is not the letter which Inche Abdul Hamid said he received.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a point made in the motion standing in the name of Inche Abdul Hamid that the Minister has made misleading statements to the Press in connection with the rejection of the petition. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure you that there have been no misleading statements whatsoever made to the Press. If there was a misleading statement, it was one made by Inche Abdul Hamid himself. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister is not referring to the Member for Geylang Serai when he says "Inche Abdul Hamid".

Mr Byrne: I am referring to the President of the U.M.N.O.

Mr Speaker: That I think probably satisfies the Member for Geylang Serai.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, when this letter appeared in the Press, the Press rang me up and asked me for any comments, and my comments were reproduced in this report. It reads as follows:-

"Mr Byrne said tonight he had never at any time made the decision."

That statement is quite correct. "It was a decision of the Cabinet. It was made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself and was transmitted to the person concerned through his Ministry."

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Order in Council, the discretion to remit a sentence or not to remit a sentence is vested clearly in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by law and not in the Cabinet. So that statement is correct.

`He explained: "The petition was sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who sought advice from the Cabinet."'

That is correct.

`"The Cabinet gave him certain advice with regard to this matter and he decided that there should be no pardon.

His decision then came to the Ministry of Labour and Law as we deal with legal matters, and on the instruction of the Minister, the State Advocate-General communicated the decision to the person concerned."'

That is also correct, Mr Speaker.

`He said he had checked with law officers and they confirmed that what the Ministry had done was "in accordance with normal constitutional practice."

`"It is complete nonsense to suggest that the decision came from the Minister. The power is clearly vested in the person of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara himself and not in a Minister or in the Cabinet."'

That is correct, and there is nothing misleading in the statements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last point I would make is to show the difference between practice under the old constitution with which the Member for Geylang Serai is familiar, that is, the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955. Now, in that Order in Council, the power of remitting a sentence was vested in the Governor. Under the present Constitution, it is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. In the old Constitution, the Governor could consult the Council of Ministers if he wished to. If he did not wish to, he need not consult them. And if he consulted the Council of Ministers, he could disregard the advice given by them. Under the present Constitution, the power of remitting a sentence is still vested in the counterpart of the Governor, that is, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara; and under the present Constitution he must consult the Cabinet on all matters, even in matters which are left to be decided in his sole discretion. That is the position. So that today the Yang di-Pertuan Negara would have to consult the Cabinet on petitions and requests of remission of sentences. So that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would submit that as far as the Government is concerned, it has not done anything which can be considered to be unconstitutional. I would say that as far as the charge relates to my conduct in this matter, I can assure this House that I have acted constitutionally, and I have not at any time made misleading statements to the Press about this matter.

5.02 p.m.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff (Anson): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning the Government's alleged misuse of the Constitution or that it has gone against the Constitution, as stated by the Member for Geylang Serai, I feel that this is not so, because the Member for Geylang Serai certainly knows the Constitution very well, and also the powers and functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in a self-governing Singapore, as contained in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council; and also because he was one of the Members who were responsible for and who were signatories to the Constitution which granted Singapore self-government.

As a citizen and a representative of the people of this country, it is my responsibility to say a few words - in the form of explanatory notes - to those people who have been misled. It is essential for me to emphasise here again, Mr Speaker, that I rise to speak not merely because of sentiment. Not only do I oppose the Opposition Members, particularly the Malay representatives who have moved this motion, but I also oppose the motion from the point of view of our stand and discipline as far as they concern the motion.

Mr Speaker, I most certainly feel sorry for the Member for Geylang Serai who did not, in the first instance, make a thorough investigation of the motion which he has moved, to see whether it was merely motivated by sentiment or for the purpose of winning the support of the Muslim people, because I am of the opinion that he and his colleagues might have the impression that they are heroes of the Malay community without, however, thinking of the consequences that would result therefrom.

Mr Speaker, if certain U.M.N.O. leaders outside, for instance, the pro tem Chairman of the U.M.N.O. Emergency Committee, Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Allwie, do not understand the substance or the interpretation, or the definition of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council concerning the powers and functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or the powers of the Cabinet in the march towards self-government, I feel confident that they will be taught and guided by the Member for Geylang Serai himself because, as I said just now, the Member for Geylang Serai knows better the contents of the Constitution of Singapore. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, what we had hoped for did not materialise. In fact, the Member for Geylang Serai has seen fit to mislead and confuse the issue which is already confused and very dreadful.

As a citizen and a representative of the people of Singapore, I wish to see the unity of all races regardless of religion, race, skin, etc, in this island so that they can live in peace and harmony. I hope that the Muslim people particularly in Singapore will not be misled, or blindly succumb to the propaganda which is being spread by certain leaders who I can say are irresponsible leaders. I feel, Mr Speaker, that there is no necessity for the Minister for Labour and Law to dwell at length on the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or the powers of the Cabinet, because the Member responsible is with us, although the other two Members are in the dark. But I feel that the Member concerned will be in a position to advise his two other colleagues.

As we have heard just now from the Minister, the Minister said that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had received on 5th June, 1959, a petition in the form of a letter from the pro tem Chairman of the U.M.N.O. Emergency Committee in the English language. The letter was read in translation, and I feel no comment on this is needed. But what I can say here is that the reply which was transmitted to the pro tem Chairman via the State Advocate-General was completely distorted.

Once again, Mr Speaker, the Member has no need to move this motion. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara is the Head of State in Singapore. All State matters which are transmitted to him, before they can be disposed of, must be discussed by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet does not comprise one person, as has been suggested in the motion to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to look into the conduct of the Minister. But the Cabinet consists of nine Ministers, and these nine Ministers are responsible - not merely one Minister. On the 9th June, the Minister received a letter from the Malay Seamen's Union, and on the 6th July the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was informed by the Minister for Labour and Law that the letter was routed first to the Minister for Home Affairs, then to the Minister for Labour and Law, and finally to the Cabinet, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It is necessary that we here should study carefully the position so that this misunderstanding which has arisen will not occur again in the future. In my opinion, such a misunderstanding is very dangerous, because if matters get out of control, there will be communal conflict or riots, as had occurred in December 1950, during which 18 people were killed, 130 people were wounded, 72 cars were burnt, and hundreds more cars were damaged. That was the work of a handful of people but it resulted in bloodshed and the loss of hundreds of lives in Singapore. At that time the people who were responsible for all this disappeared. Those who suffered were the ordinary people. I hope this matter will not recur as by the time it was over the instigators would already have fled to Ceylon or some other country.

Mr Speaker, this is important to me and to my colleagues on this side of the House, and I believe, to Tunku Abdul Rahman, and Dato Abdul Razak too, for the sake of unity. However, I do not wish to go further into this matter because the question of the unity of the various races is of the utmost importance.

Mr Speaker, to revert to the motion. On the whole, I do not see where the Constitution has been misused. I fail to see the reasons for the appointment of a Commission to investigate into the conduct of a Minister of this Government. The reason why I say that I cannot understand is that the questions asked by the Member for Geylang Serai have been replied to by the Minister for Labour, and it is clear that his conduct was constitutional. My view on this matter is that this motion was deliberately moved in order to challenge the powers of the Government -

Mr Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Member to continue when he was becoming irrelevant. But now he is imputing improper motives to the Member who moved the motion, and that of course is not permitted under our Standing Orders.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff: (In Malay): As I said earlier, we have facts which show the role of the Cabinet in regard to the exchange of letters sent to the Chairman. The facts are true. But what is not true is the means of disseminating the replies to newspaper reporters and to the people of Singapore. The reason, Mr Speaker, is that there are many sentences which were omitted merely to mislead the public, particularly the people of the Islamic faith, because this matter is one in which the prisoners involved are serving sentence as a result of religious feelings. I hope that the Member for Geylang Serai, the mover of this motion, can in the future be on the look-out so as to refrain from casting aspersions. We must be careful in the conduct of our every-day affairs so as to avert misunderstanding which is bound to occur and which will result in chaos.

Mr Speaker: I do not know how many Members will speak. Is it the wish of hon. Members that we should suspend for tea?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: It is? I will then take this Chair again at a quarter to six.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.19 p.m.until 5.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.45 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the call for the formation of a Commission under debate arose as the result of the failure of the U.M.N.O. Members to make capital out of their appeal for the release of Muslim prisoners sentenced in connection with the riots of December 1950.

The Member for Geylang Serai was an important Minister in the last Government and we wonder how it is that nothing was done for those prisoners when he was in office.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I have already made it very clear that this debate must be confined to the constitutional issue and nothing more.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say in passing that from something straightforward, where the case is judged purely on its merits, the U.M.N.O. Members have chosen to turn this into a political and communal issue.

Mr Speaker: Order. There again I think the hon. Member is getting off the track. Shall we come to the constitutional issue and nothing more than the constitutional issue?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Can I merely explain, Sir, that we have today a motion which may stir up racial feelings? As has been explained in detail by the Minister for Labour and Law, there has been no unconstitutional conduct on the part of any Minister. It is the normal process of democratic Government. Why then the call for the setting up of this Commission? Responsible leaders should know that a call of this nature, and in the present set of circumstances, can easily be misinterpreted, and thus lead to stirring up of a lot of communal strife. The official U.M.N.O. policy in the Federation is to stamp out - excuse me, Sir - communal feelings at whatever cost. It is thus all the more surprising that the Singapore U.M.N.O. branch is adopting such an attitude. Can it be, Sir, that these so-called leaders of U.M.N.O. in Singapore are so bankrupt of ideas and so completely detached-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think they can be, in these circumstances anyway. I think the hon. Member must try and keep to the motion before us, and that is whether or not a Commission should be appointed to investigate into what I think the Minister for Labour and Law would call a "constitutional contretemps".

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In the circumstances, Sir, may I end by saying that whatever the ulterior motive of the U.M.N.O. Members across the Floor, we hope that they will not pursue actions that may lead to communal strife?

5.52 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning the motion which was moved by U.M.N.O. through its Members in the Assembly today, I sincerely and honestly deny that we have an ulterior motive which will lead to communal strife. However, the Government should investigate more deeply into the circumstances which have resulted in the motion being moved today.

If this motion is not carefully studied, I do not deny that the accusations levelled against us, representing U.M.N.O., of creating racial strife would appear to be so. But frankly and sincerely I believe that those who have instructed us as U.M.N.O. members, who are guided by resolutions adopted by our organisation, will pursue the motion whether it is acceptable to the Government or otherwise. I cannot accept the allegations which have been hurled by the Government against my colleague, the Member for Geylang Serai. They alleged that it was his desire to create something which we do not desire in Singapore. Whatever the P.A.P., the Government in power, may say, whether we directly wish to create something which we do not wish to see, I do not wish to speak about the feelings of the ra'ayat. I do not wish to create such an atmosphere because we know the hardships and difficulties of building a community. How can we destroy that community?

Mr Speaker, we do not have any ulterior motive. I personally support what has been said by one of the Members concerning the policy of U.M.N.O. not only in Malaya but also in Singapore - a policy of creating harmony between the races. As members of U.M.N.O. in this Assembly, we are compelled to act on the instructions of our organisation. We will not hesitate to receive any clarification given by the Government. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, we in U.M.N.O. are still in doubt, because the Constitution is not clear and explicit concerning the articles contained in the exchange of correspondence received by U.M.N.O. In these circumstances, U.M.N.O. has to mention its doubt so that the spirit of the Constitution which we together support can be implemented without leaving behind the basis of the Constitution which we support today.

Apart from that, Mr Speaker, we Opposition Members are willing to accept the accusations and allegations hurled against us in good grace because, as I have explained clearly, the struggle is to help build a society; it is not our intention to disrupt it. Therefore, if the opinion of the Government is that U.M.N.O. has moved this motion with an improper motive because-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan is going on a track which I have asked hon. Members not to go on. I do not think there has been any allegation from Government that the motion has been moved with an improper motive. I think the Hon. the Minister was quite clear in his statement when he debated this motion. He only touched on the constitutional point. He did not go on any extraneous point in deference to the Chair.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): I offer my apologies, Sir. Mr Speaker, to revert to the motion before us which we are debating now, what I have emphasised and as the mover of the motion has explained, the correspondence which U.M.N.O. had received was not explicit. Therefore, U.M.N.O. is still in doubt and consider that the functions carried out by the Minister concerned and his conduct in the matter are improper. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I do not wish to lengthen this debate, but I wish to reiterate that U.M.N.O. is of the opinion that the letters which were received by U.M.N.O. are not according to the Constitution.

6.00 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, after what we have heard both from the Government side and from the Opposition side on the motion moved by the Member for Geylang Serai, I feel that this is not a big issue and if we study this motion carefully, we will find that this has arisen from the doubts, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the mover of the motion. I would like to remind the Opposition that if they were to use scientific eye-glasses, they would be able to get a true picture of the whole affair; but unfortunately the eye-glasses which are being worn by the Opposition side are so blurred that they cannot even see the cat's fur and they mistake the cat for a tiger to such an extent that their thoughts have been influenced-

Mr Speaker: I think another hon. Member was guilty of using a "tiger" expression. Now the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is going on to other similar expressions. I think he is very fond of similes, but sometimes similes can become offensive. So I ask him to be very careful in the use of similes.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I did not use the term "tiger" as an expression of anger but I meant to show the difference between a tiger and a cat because they are almost alike. Therefore, the Opposition see the cat as a tiger.

Mr Speaker: Order. Of course, it does make a difference when the simile becomes offensive to the people to whom the hon. Member refers, and I think probably he is on the verge of being offensive.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to have a debate with you. But I will continue with my views on this motion.

We are wasting our time unnecessarily because of the doubts of the mover of the motion. A Member of the Opposition has expressed his regret at the unsatisfactory reply received. Therefore it is clear that this action was taken because of doubts. If the contents of the letter were clearly understood, then I feel that this motion would not have been moved in this Assembly. I would like to convey my views on this motion. I made reference to a tiger as a warning to the Member for Geylang Serai who himself started by warning us that this motion was not spurred on by sentiment or communal feelings. But I say that my views on this motion are not based on sentiment or on communal lines but on the basis of justice. We participate in this debate for our common interest. It is true that we together promulgated the present Constitution which is in force in Singapore, but the interpretation of the articles contained in the Constitution may be different. I think this is the main and fundamental issue. The Member for Geylang Serai did not accuse but indirectly stated that we must rectify the mistakes concerning the Constitution and that if the P.A.P. did not wish to uphold the Constitution it was going against the Constitution. If this is not an allegation, I consider it then as an accusation, but I do not wish to dwell on this at length. Charges and counter-charges will not end.

The position of the Yang-.di-Pertuan Negara was explicitly clarified by the Minister for Labour and Law at length. Regarding the reply sent by the State Advocate-General to the protem Chairman of the Emergency Committee of Singapore's U.M.N.O., the position was also explained in detail. I feel that all the doubts in the minds of the Opposition should be cleared. The Opposition related the history of the Singapore riots which were connected with the motion moved today. The Member for the Southern Islands stated that he did not wish to reopen the wound of 1950, and that he hoped it would be healed. But I am surprised that indirectly the Opposition have brought out a sharp knife. This will only serve to confuse the people. This will only lead to a new wound; it will not remove the old scar.

Mr Speaker, fortunately, the persons connected with the motion are in the wrong, otherwise we will be discussing the rights of the Malays. If we study carefully the speech of the Member for Kampong Kembangan, which was supported by the Member for the Southern Islands, the Member for Kampong Kembangan stated that he had moved the motion on behalf of Singapore's U.M.N.O., and the Member for the Southern Islands said that he was compelled to support the motion to comply with instructions from U.M.N.O. This clearly shows that this motion was deliberately moved whilst the mover of the motion himself was undecided as to whether to move it or not.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan stated that U.M.N.O.'s representatives in this House did not bring up this motion to stir up communal feelings. On our side, we do not, in fact, accuse them of stirring up communal feelings but we would like to say this to them. Any misinterpretation of the facts outside this House to say that this matter concerns the religion of Islam, a Holy War of struggle, and so on, is going to cause us great concern. Therefore, this matter should not be protracted. If it is true that the Opposition side wishes to seek a policy based on mutual understanding between the Government and the Opposition, then is there any necessity to move such a motion which is based on doubts or based on what they term "the contents of the letter not being explicit"? Even a child can answer this. If they do not understand it, why do they not write a letter to the State Advocate-General? The State Advocate-General is not working for the P.A.P. alone but he is also working for all the people of Singapore. He will be able to explain matters concerning the powers and functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Send a letter first and make enquiries before moving a motion. But here with letters "the contents of which were not explicit" as a basis, a motion had been tabled and then a statement was issued to the Press which appeared in bold headlines. Mr Speaker, as a Member of this Assembly and as a citizen of this country, in touch with all races on this island, I have been flooded with enquiries consequent upon the Press statement and on the motion which was tabled by the Opposition and which we are debating today. Of course, we do not expect the Opposition to light the fire but we know that it is dangerous to strike a light in a hot situation when there is dry wood and oil around.

So, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government, in all sincerity and honesty, I hope that motions of this nature will not be moved in future. The Opposition say that this motion is not based on communal issues or sentiments. The fact is that this matter could have been resolved if enquiries had been made to the proper authorities. Mr Speaker, I say there are two ways for an adult to cry. One way is to wail with an appealing voice and the shedding of tears. The other way of crying is to cry silently "in the heart". I think crying silently in the heart is crying in the true sense of the word. But, the shedding of "crocodile tears", shall we say, is merely designed for the purpose of enlisting the moral support of others. If a child cries when he loses his father, he will really loudly wail but at the same time he will also be thinking whether or not he will inherit his father's property. So I feel this motion, if studied carefully and with proper perspective, is based on uncertainty or lack of understanding, as is obvious from the speeches made by the three Members of the Opposition. In the circumstances, I feel today's sitting has wasted much of its time in discussing a matter which is based on doubts or lack of understanding.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the speeches made by the Opposition to the effect that they are not based on communal feelings or carried away by emotion. I hope the speeches as heard by all Members of the Assembly, will not only be heard in this Chamber but also be put into practice outside this House so that the unity of the people of Singapore as a whole will be maintained in a good spirit.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I oppose this motion vigorously because, in my opinion, apart from it being based on doubts as I said just now or on misunderstanding or lack of understanding, if we appoint a Commission to be presided over by a High Court Judge to look into the conduct of the Ministers and the staff of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara it will take months; whereas in fact the motion is only based on doubts. We, as a revolutionary Government, want to progress-we want to work more and talk less. We have wasted much time unnecessarily. Therefore, I think this motion is inappropriate if we truly want justice. On the other hand, as I said just now, the Malay maxim says: if it is not because of the ripening padi the weaver-bird will not bother to nest in a low-hanging branch. Therefore, to cut my speech short, my stand is that I oppose it vigorously. On the whole, the arguments or the explanations of this motion did not come from me but from the speeches of the three Members who have stated that the replies received from the Advocate-General are vague. Therefore, my opinion is that we should not waste our precious time in discussing a matter which is only based on doubts.

6.20 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been two sittings of this Assembly and on each occasion the Members for Geylang Serai, Kampong Kembangan and the Southern Islands have had the honour of introducing the only motions to come from the Opposition. Strangely enough, both of these motions have had to be prefaced by the remark that there was nothing communal about them; that on the contrary they were motivated by the object of ensuring that this Government observe the provisions of the Constitution. I am told, Sir, that professional anti-Semites always profess that they number Jews among their best friends and then proceed to give expression to the anti-Semetic ideology. Sir, on the face of it, the motion now before the House appears to be concerned only with the finer points of constitutional theory and practice. If that had been the only concern, this matter would have been happily resolved by the Member for Geylang Serai taking his two bewildered colleagues quietly to a room and explaining the real constitutional position. And I have every reason to believe, Sir, that the Member for Geylang Serai knows the correct answer to the constitutional problems, to the questions raised in this motion, since he was among those who went to London to help forge the present Constitution. I would hate to think, Sir, that the hon. Member was party to something he did not quite understand. Since he knew what he endorsed, the Member for Geylang Serai must be aware that there is nothing unconstitutional in any Minister or the Government advising the Yang di-Pertuan Negara not to grant clemency to those sentenced in connection with the riots in December 1950.

I am not a constitutional expert myself, but I had no difficulty in following the argument that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara even in regard to the Royal prerogative of mercy acts in accordance with the advice tendered by the Minister concerned; in this particular case, the advice was given by the Cabinet as a whole. I am quite sure, Sir, that the Member for Geylang Serai could have explained all this to his colleagues outside this Chamber, perhaps in an atmosphere not tinged with high emotion. In fact, it should have been his duty to do so, because his colleagues were not privileged like him to participate in the constitutional deliberations in London. Instead he has allowed them to harbour the most fantastic notions about the Constitution. At least, right up to the present moment, he has allowed them to continue in the belief that the Government has arrogated powers that are rightly those of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's.

In any case, Sir, I came here feeling that perhaps the Member for Geylang Serai had some finer points of the Constitution which he was going to expound - to confound, and to confuse our Minister for Labour and Law. But, Sir, listening to the speeches from the Members opposite, I got the distinct impression that they were not at all particularly concerned with the niceties of constitutional law. Certainly the speeches stated no grave doubts as to any breaches of the Constitution. All that the Member for Geylang Serai said was that there were two letters, one of which was sent by the Minister for Labour and Law to him and another which appeared in the papers, and that he found great difficulty in reconciling them. Because of this he now wants to go through the process of setting up a Commission to be presided over by a High Court Judge to decide on a very simple issue - an issue which arose simply because the Member for Geylang Serai has made unnecessary difficulties for himself by trying not to understand this very simple problem. In fact, one of the things about this motion is its curious wording. One of the terms of the Commission is

"to report as to whether there has been unconstitutional conduct on the part of any and, if so, which Minister of Government...".

At least this implies that the mover of this motion is only interested in ascertaining whether one particular Minister has been guilty of a breach of constitutional practice. Sir, I have been wondering why this motion singles out one Minister of the Government, instead of charging the Cabinet as a whole, or the Government as a whole, of having breached the Constitution. Those of us who have followed very closely the controversy which led to this motion will probably not be in doubt as to which Minister is meant, which Minister is to be made the villain of the piece.

First, the only Minister who has had anything to say on the matter was the Minister for Labour and Law. In fact, statements in the Press have been so couched as to concentrate the attacks on the Minister for Labour and Law even when his critics knew that whatever advice the Minister gave was the collective decision of the Cabinet. The Straits Times of 30th July - it was quite clear that the Minister for Labour and Law was going to be made the scapegoat. The heading reads - "U.M.N.O. lashes at Byrne - took Goode's Powers". The report goes on to say:-

"The pro tem chairman of Singapore U.M.N.O., Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Allwie, today claimed that the Minister for Labour and Law, Mr K. M. Byrne, had `arrogated to himself some of the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.'"

Why was it necessary to single out one Minister instead of condemning the Government as a whole? Perhaps the movers of this motion, since they have been instructed to introduce this motion, are not aware of the association of ideas that could result from such a motion. As you know, Sir, the subject matter of the motion relates to certain Muslim prisoners who were convicted as a result of their participation in the riots of December 1950. At that time, the whole affair was associated with members of the Eurasian community. And now the same tactic of fixing the blame for this on another Eurasian would certainly have serious consequences which perhaps the Members who have moved this motion do not quite realise. And therefore, I would say to the Members opposite that even if they profess that any motion that they bring to this House has no communal or racial connotations, they must realise that people outside are not as politically sophisticated as they are, and might make other inferences from a motion of this kind. As I said earlier in my opening remarks, the two motions that have been brought up so far have required prefatory remarks by the Members opposite that these motions have no racial or communal connotations.

Now, Sir, the constitutional position has been quite clearly stated by the Minister for Labour and Law. I am quite sure that the Member for Geylang Serai, if he is genuinely interested in seeking clarification of the constitutional aspects of the matter, should now be quite satisfied that there has been no breach of the Constitution; that there has been no attempt to arrogate powers that rightly belong to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But if he is not persuaded that there has been no breach of the Constitution, then I am afraid, Sir, since we have another four years and ten months to go, that we shall receive other motions which will require prefatory remarks by the Members opposite, that there is nothing communal about motions they are going, to introduce, and that they are moving them with the highest of motives, probably motives which are commendable, but which we, on this side of the House, will continue to expose and criticise as being communal in character; and if they persist in this sort of practice for another four years and ten months, then we may land in precisely the kind of political atmosphere and tragedy that overtook many other countries in Asia.

6.36 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was incredulous when I received notice of this motion which stands in the name of the Member for Geylang Serai, and others. I wonder why he did not want to take the full credit for this motion. I also wonder how he overcame his pathological fear of Commissions of Inquiry to put himself into a position where he is asking for one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the draft of the motion that was first submitted might or might not have been in the terms in which it has now appeared before the Assembly. But I tell the Member for Geylang Serai quite simply that political rumbustiousness, crude, coarse, political gangster tactics, are not likely to intimidate, overawe or paralyse this Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the whole of that paragraph must be ruled out in reference to the hon. Member for Geylang Serai. If there is an allegation that he is adopting gangster tactics, I am sure the Hon. Prime Minister must know that it is wrong. Let us get down to the meat of the motion.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I get down to the meat of the motion, I would like to lay down a few general principles which I hope will guide the Opposition Members in their dealings with this Government. One of the principles is that this is not a Government to be pushed from pillar to post. If the Member for Geylang Serai wants a Commission of Inquiry at the end of this debate, I am quite prepared to move three amendments to his motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai was one of the authors of this Constitution. I forgive him for not understanding it.

Mr Speaker: Order. If strangers in the Gallery cannot keep silent, they will have to go. May I ask hon. Members not to be too frivolous about this motion? I know the Prime Minister is a very good speaker and he entertains, but I think that hon. Members should try to contain themselves,

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, in all seriousness, I was prepared to forgive the Member for Geylang Serai for not being able to understand the somewhat abstruse language of the Constitution itself and section 9 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. But I find it difficult to believe that he could have appended his signature to the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Talks in London in March 1957, which was phrased in ordinary simple English. It was for the specific purpose of making it impossible for anybody subsequently to deny that he intended to mean what he did sign. Let me read this to the Member for Geylang Serai - paragraph 17, subparagraph (iv) of that Report of 1957, regarding the Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It says here:

"Exercise of Responsibilities

The exercise of the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be governed by Royal Instructions which, in conjunction with the provision of the Constitution Order in Council, would oblige the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to act in accordance with the advice of his Ministers (except insofar as is otherwise provided for in this Report), save that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara would exercise the degree of personal discretion ordinarily reposed in the Queen's representative in a fully independent member of the Commonwealth e.g. in relation to such constitutional functions as the appointment and dismissal of a Prime Minister and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly."

Nothing could be more clear. The former Chief Minister signed it. The former Deputy Chief Minister signed it. In his own time - the first and last they ever held office in Singapore - they gazetted the Royal Instructions. They published it on the 10th April, 1959. They expired on the - I am not sure on which particular day the resignation was put in, as required by constitutional form. But at the time when it was published, this was their Report. The 10th of April - in the lifetime of the Lim Yew Hock regime - they issued Royal Instructions setting out in legalese the simple words of paragraph 17 (iv) of the Report of the London Constitutional Talks. Nothing could be more clear.

But what is also more clear - clear beyond a vestige of any doubt - is the purpose with which this motion has been tabled. If the Member was moved purely by the desire to uphold the righteousness of the Constitution and the rights of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, let me point out the simple remedy that he has got. Take an action in the High Court, and get whichever Minister he believes to be acting ultra vires the Constitution properly dealt with. He knows that. He went to London and, according to what he told his constituency, he consulted lawyers before he signed this Report. I was glad he said that, because then he absolved me from responsibility for anything which otherwise might rest on my shoulders as the only lawyer in the delegation. What does he seek to do in this motion?

In the midst of a solicitous enquiry as to the propriety of ministerial action and the conduct of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and members of his staff, he added in the operative words of this motion:

"...appeal of U.M.N.O. for the release of Muslim prisoners sentenced in connection with the riots of December 1950...".

That is what is really the meat of the motion. If one cannot sustain political leadership with political sagacity, then at least one should try to get mob support on the basis of communal prejudices, religious automatic reflexes, and perhaps, a Commission of Inquiry. This, despite all the ruination that was brought upon him as a result two Commissions of Inquiry - one bullet ricochetted from Chew Swee Kee to one Kartini binte Haji Mulok, and the other-

Mr Speaker: Order. I must stop all these irrelevancies. I think the Prime Minister ought not to be guilty of irrelevancies.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, with great respect, far from being irrelevant, I would like to suggest to the Member for Geylang Serai that there are three alternative courses open to us on this side of the House. I do not know how this will interfere with the decorum with which you require us to conduct debates in this House, or with the rules as laid down in the Standing Orders. Depending upon the contingencies, we could amend this motion, for instance, to read:

"That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission, to be presided over by a High Court Judge, with powers to call upon any Minister....".

Now, that is a very strange thing. Sir, the last time we had a Commission of Inquiry over the City Council, we subpoenaed a Minister. And just before he was to appear - there was an argument whether a Minister could or could not be subpoenaed - the Inquiry came to a premature adjournment. We could change that to "call upon any Minister or ex-Ministers and Members of the staff of the Governor to give evidence". Or we could cause such a Commission to be appointed, for the purposes of ascertaining the circumstances in which either an ex-Minister or a present Minister committed perjury in a particular High Court motion. We could turn this Commission of Inquiry into a Commission to inquire into much more fruitful and much more dubious affairs that took place in the management of the business of Government in this country. As far as we are concerned, this motion is a piece of impertinence-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very sorry to have to pull up the Prime Minister who should give a lead himself on being parliamentary. He knows that the word "impertinence" is unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw it.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word "impertinence", but that does not mean that the evil and the unbecoming motives which led to this motion being tabled did not, in fact, exist at the time when permission was sought to table it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the Prime Minister has sufficient ingenuity to use parliamentary language when touching on that point.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are certain difficulties in dealing with this motion. If one deals with an elephant, a rapier is hardly the appropriate weapon. Mr Speaker, Sir, in dealing with motions in which the movers have, as a result of the way in which you have ruled that the debate should be confined, found difficulty in keeping themselves to the meat of their own motions, I am not sure whether or not I should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously, Mr Speaker, Sir, you must have believed that they were motivated by the best of honourable desires to see the Constitution upheld. If that is so, we shall see whether or not the mover of this motion will withdraw it. If he does not, let me assure him that we can appoint three Commissions of Inquiry in the very near future - all of which will concern ex-Ministers who held high office, and might even involve the present mover of this motion. We will then regale him and his former colleagues with very delicate and sensational revelations of the things that transpired in the last regime.

6.50 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, we have heard at great length the speeches from the Government side, but in my opinion the most important point that has emerged from the debate on our motion is the confusion over that part where the Minister for Labour and Law translated it beyond the scope of my intention. The Minister for Labour and Law stated - and the Prime Minister himself also said - that I did not know what was contained in the Constitution and what had occurred in London when I went with the Merdeka mission. Here, I should explain, Mr Speaker, that in my speech I have explained as explicitly as possible that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can take the advice of anyone, whether it be from the Cabinet or from the Minister. This is contained in the Constitution and was also minuted in London, and we had confirmed the minutes. Therefore, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can make his own decision on matters relating to the granting of pardons after receipt of advice from the Cabinet. I do not deny this. As I have explained earlier, that is a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister for Labour and Law.

Another issue is why the letter from the Ministry of Labour and Law did not state that the Minister had received instructions from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to convey his decision in full?

As regards the Press statement, the Minister for Labour and Law said that the statement from U.M.N.O. printed in the newspaper stated that the Minister himself had regretted that he was unable to grant further clemency in respect of the five Muslim prisoners still under detention. Concerning the U.M. N.O. statement in the Straits Times, I would explain that it was issued by the Chairman of U.M.N.O., Singapore, at a Press conference. But unfortunately the Straits Times only mentioned that the Minister for Labour and Law had regretted that he was unable to accept the petition from U.M.N.O., whereas the Chinese newspaper, the Sin Chew Jit Poh itself gave a clear and explicit explanation.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture stated that we from U.M.N.O. had moved two motions since coming into this new Assembly, but unfortunately, he stated that on each occasion when we moved a motion we had prefaced our speeches by saying that our motions had no communal connotations. The reason why we from U.M.N.O. were obliged to do that is because since we are from U.M.N.O. we are always accused by other Parties who allege that we are a communal party, that our attitudes are always communal, and that our aim is merely to create racial strife. For these reasons we, from U.M.N.O., are compelled to preface our motions in such terms; but not because we feel that we are a communal organisation, because U.M.N.O. is not a communal party but is a national organisation.

However, Mr Speaker, although we have received threats from the Government side - threats or phraseology which, in my opinion, should not be used here and which are irrelevant - I feel sure that with the motion before us in this House, we can together, both the Government and the Opposition, safeguard the Constitution of Singapore.

Question put.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 39; Abstentions, 4; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Jumat. Baharuddin bin Ahmad Jabri bin Mohamed Ariff. Mohammad Akib. Bani, S. T. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Miss. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Abstentions. Fung Yin Ching, Lim Yew Hock. Miss. Rajah, A. P. Goh Chew Chua. Seow Peck Leng, Goh Keng Swee. Miss. Hoe Puay Choo, Thio Chan Bee. Madam. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Siew Choh. Absent. Lee Teck Him. Koh, C. H. Leong Keng Seng Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Ong Eng Guan. Lingam, S. V. Ramaswamy, S. Low Por Tuck. Yong Nyuk Lin. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed.

Motion accordingly negatived.