PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

3.01 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955 (No. 25 of 1955)."

Bill read the First time.

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

The Prime Minister: Now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies available to Members.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Second Reading

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, my Party's stand on emergency powers for the Government was stated on the 8th October last year, when the last Assembly debated an amendment to the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance extending its life for another year.

At the time we made our stand in this House, we envisaged a situation when in October 1959 we would be responsible for the Government, and the Bill would either lapse or come up for a further extension. It was with circumspection that we set out the principles which guided us, and which led us to the conclusion that as long as there are Emergency laws in the Federation, there will be Emergency laws in Singapore. But for the benefit of Members who were not in this House on the 8th October last year, may I refer them to Volume 3, No. 9 of the Hansard, column 800 for my speech, column 815 for the speech of my colleague, the present Minister for Health, and column 819 for the speech of my colleague, the Member for Tampines.

May I read a few passages out of the speech I made on that occasion? The beginning of column 803:

"But, there may be people - I am quite sure that there may be some in important positions not only in Singapore but across the Causeway - who may want to know what the People's Action Party propose to do in the next elections. Is it going to repeat the same anti-Emergency Regulations stand? Is it going to make this an election issue, and then having won the elections seek to abolish the Emergency Regulations and precipitate a crisis? Under normal conditions, Sir, I would tell such nosey and curious people to wait for the proper time in the next few months when we shall be issuing our election manifesto. But it may be that the Federation of Malaya would like to know its position vis a vis Singapore after the next general elections, because the Federation of Malaya has to be represented on our Internal Security Council under the new Constitution. In fact, it is to have the decisive vote. What is to happen to these Emergency laws is a matter of some considerable importance to them, because there are now two political situations; one in the Federation and one in Singapore, both distinct and separate and self-contained with a cordon sanitaire in the Straits of Johore. And they would like to know whether there is going to be a crisis immediately after the general elections, with an emergency meeting of the Internal Security Council summoned by the British to oppose any intended moves to abolish the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. In such a situation, the Federation may find themselves in the embarrassing position of (1) voting with the British against the Singapore representatives; or (2) voting with the Singapore representatives to abolish the Emergency laws which they in the Federation still consider necessary."

May I then take Members to column 804?

"As a Party of the "Left", we may not always agree or see eye to eye with a Party of the "Right", as the Tunku has once called the United Malay Nationalist Organisation. But we can assure them that their views and susceptibilities will be given the most careful consideration by us. We state our stand now on the quest on of the Emergency laws, and it is this: that as long as they are necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Federation, so long will they be necessary for Singapore. Sir, we state this now in the full knowledge and anticipation that there will be political bankrupts and charlatans, those who have, and those who have not ever graced the chairs of this Assembly, who will make promises to abolish them in the next elections. We have met such types before, and we expect to meet them in the next elections. When that time comes, we shall justify out view and our stand, that there will be no abolition of the Emergency laws in Singapore until they have been abolished in the Federation. Those who want the Emergency laws abolished in Singapore should try to help to establish conditions of peace and security in the Federation so that they may no longer be required there."

And again in column 807:

"But we also wish to say that the use of these Emergency powers depends upon the stand of the persons who are equipped with them, and we stand for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. Within this democratic system, everyone has the right to compete, to preach his political views, but the competition must be for the purpose of working the system, not of destroying it. These powers will not be allowed to be used against political opponents within the system who compete for the right to work the system. That is fundamental and basic, or the powers will have destroyed the purpose for which they were forged. If in using these powers you, in fact, negate the purpose for which you made them, then you will end up with a situation where force, and more force, will become increasingly necessary."

May I pass on to column 810?

"Let this also be made known, that our definition of the word "subversion" is probably different from the British definition of that term, and maybe even from the Labour Front definition of that term - "subversion". In our definition "subversion" is any political activity designed to further the aims and interests not of our own people but of foreign powers; and by foreign powers we mean not just Russia and China, but also America and Formosa, and the Western bloc."

And we went on to say on that occasion:

"We in the People's Action Party would prefer to lose an election rather than win it on false premises and promises."

Sir, before I proceed to deal with the amendments which this Bill seeks to make, may I remind the Right that our antipathy to local or expatriate agents, who subordinate the interests of the people of Singapore to foreign power interests, is as strong now as it was when we were the Opposition? Lip service docility will not hide their malevolent intentions to see that the Left Wing Government in Singapore does not succeed to the detriment of the interests of the Right.

It is really unnecessary for me to elaborate on the reasons for this Bill. But there are some changes about which Members may wish to be informed.

First, clause 5 of the Bill repeals section 5 of the present Ordinance which provides for an Appeal Tribunal consisting of three judges, and substitutes in its place the original position obtaining under the Emergency laws, that is, an advisory committee.

In September this year, I had discussions with the present Chief Justice about the functions of the judiciary under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which is due to lapse later this month. The position is that the judges have been unhappy over their duties under section 6 of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and have indicated that they would like to be relieved of their executive responsibilities under that section and act only in an advisory capacity. Sir, this is not something new. In 1955, when the former Chief Minister, Mr David Saul Marshall, had to deceive the people into believing that he had abolished the Emergency Regulations, as he promised to in the last elections, by replacing it with the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, he obtained the consent of the then Chief Justice, Sir Charles Murray-Aynsley, to allow the judges to serve on an executive appeal tribunal. When Sir Charles retired and Sir John Whyatt succeeded him as Chief Justice, protests were made to the then Government about the improper use of the judiciary under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.

In September 1958, one month before the Ordinance was due to expire, or come up for extension, the then Chief Minister wrote to the then Acting Chief Justice, Mr Tan Ah Tah, asking him to agree to allow the judges to continue for one more year under the P.P.S.O. The Acting Chief Justice replied in these terms:

"My brother judges and I are all of the opinion that it is extremely undesirable for members of the judiciary to constitute the Appeal Tribunal under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance...we think it was a mistake to have caused the judiciary to be associated with the work of the tribunal. However, in view of the reasons for extension of the life of the Ordinance set out in your letter and more particularly in view of your assurance that the judiciary will not be called upon to do this work for more than one further year, the judges who constitute the tribunal have agreed with great reluctance to continue to serve as members of the tribunal."

Sir, these letters are on record and leaders of the Opposition who constituted the last Government are fully aware of their contents and of the real position.

Now, we state that on principle it is wrong to use the judges in this way. First, by the very nature of the tribunal the judges are not presented with a justiciable issue. They are not presented with issues either of fact or of law and asked to decide on the evidence adduced before them according to the Evidence Ordinance. They have either to accept or reject the Government's intelligence reports on a particular person. If they agree with the decisions of the Executive in all cases, then they become a rubber stamp for the Executive. If they reject the intelligence reports so received, then they will have to be responsible for the consequences it may bring about on the security of the State. The net result has been that, in the vast majority of cases, they have accepted Government intelligence reports. But now and again they have allowed a few appeals. This they must do unless they are to be obvious rubber stamps for the Executive. This position they have considered unsatisfactory and, in fact, it demeans their high office.

Second, on principle, the responsibility for the detention or otherwise of a person under extraordinary powers such as these cannot rest with the judiciary. An Executive which shifts this responsibility to the judges by asking them to superimpose their judicial stamp on an Executive decision is shirking its responsibility and abusing the judiciary. On principle, it is not the duty of the judiciary to act as administrative or executive officers of the Government, nor are they properly equipped to discharge such functions. In all civilised countries the responsibility for the security of the State rests with the elected government, not the judges of the State. In Singapore, our's is a special position, as the Leader of the House, the Deputy Prime Minister, has stated - that ultimate power rests not with the Singapore Government but with the Internal Security Council, on which Singapore has three out of seven representatives. Therefore, in the last analysis, let us clearly understand that these extraordinary powers under the P.P.S.O. are vested not in the Singapore Government but in the Security Council. Certainly they are not vested in our judiciary.

Sir, the other amendment set out in clause 3 of the Bill is intended to give the Minister more flexibility in the exercise of these powers. Under the present law restrictions can only be imposed after a person has been detained. A man must first be detained before he can be released on conditions. Under clause 3 of the Bill, a person can be placed on conditions without first having to have him detained. This will avoid unnecessary detentions. Also for the same purpose, to avoid having to detain more people than is necessary, the powers of restrictions have now been made more flexible to allow a wider field of cases where conditions can be imposed on a person allowed to remain outside, instead of keeping him inside a place of detention. Hence clause 3, which sets out that restrictions can be specified not only in respect of residence but also of employment or activities. These, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the two principal amendments that the Bill seeks.

But let me be the first to remind this House that the final answer to the Communist challenge is not provided by this type of legislation giving the Executive Emergency or extraordinary powers. Finally it is the economic, the social and political conditions and the battles on these fields that decide whether Singapore, and indeed Malaya, will grow from strength to strength as a democratic State in which the more tolerant features of human civilization are preserved, whilst the economic needs and necessities of the people are adequately met; or whether a totalitarian system will succeed the democratic State and cater for these economic needs. These powers can only provide a temporary damper against those who set out to wreck the democratic State.

The principles which guide this Government in the exercise of its primary functions as a Government have been enumerated by the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to harken back to what I said on behalf of my Party last year:

"Within this democratic system, everyone has the right to compete, to preach his political views, but the competition must be for the purpose of working the system, not of destroying it. These powers will not be allowed to be used against political opponents within the system to compete for the right to work the system. That is fundamental and basic, for the powers will have destroyed the purpose for which they were forged.

At the same time we state quite categorically that we believe in the democratic system, that we will allow full competition within the democratic system, but competition for the purpose of destroying the democratic system will be resisted."

Question proposed.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Ong Eng Guan): Mr Speaker, we meet here today to discuss the P.P.S.O. in a political situation which my Party had envisaged as early as October 1958. The stand of the People's Action Party taken before the General Elections as stated in October 1958 in this Assembly was as follows:

"It is because this is a fundamental issue that I have a mandate from my Party to state now our future position. If it were the British Government in control of the Federation of Malaya, as it was three years ago, we would still oppose the Emergency laws as vehemently as we did three years ago, because then the Emergency laws could be used and were sometimes used, not only to curb the Communists, but also to curb the militant Nationalists. It was a simple issue then of the people versus British imperialism, and we stated unequivocally where we stood.

Sir, when we were asked to vote for these laws three years ago, we opposed them, for the centre of the Government in the Federation was the High Commissioner and his nominated officials, and in Singapore it was then, and now is still, in the triumvirate of the three official Ministers headed by the Governor with over-riding powers. These are men who are not answerable to the people. Their masters are not in Singapore but in London. In that situation, we allied ourselves with all the anti-colonial forces to fight colonialism and we will continue to do so until the last vestiges of colonial rule are removed.

But now, however -".

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the Minister that we are having interpretation? And I think the interpreters are having a bit of trouble. The Minister is going a bit too fast.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I continue:

"But now, however, partly as a result of scheming by the British Raj and partly because of the accidents of history, we are faced with a separate and independent Federation of Malaya with no prospects in the immediate future of our becoming independent. Next year, we are to be only internally self-governing, and in all security matters which affect defence upon which the Singapore and the British Governments disagree, the Federation Government is to be the arbiter. We accepted that position because we accepted merger as the only way to independence. If we are prepared to accept the Federation and join it as a member state, then it means that we are prepared to allow the Government representing the 11 States in the Federation to have a decisive voice in the affairs of Singapore.

That is still our position and it will be our position for all the years to come until merger. This is the basic analysis of our political situation. If that analysis is correct, then certain logical consequences follow. We must recognise that our over-riding objective is merger and that means that we must acknowledge that until merger the over-riding interests of the Federation must prevail over Singapore. Therefore, we say that if we are the Government of Singapore, we will take no steps which will undermine the interests of the Federation. We state our stand now on the question of the Emergency laws, and it is this: that as long as they are necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Federation, so long will they be necessary for Singapore"

Mr Speaker, we are now taking the same stand on the extension of the life of the P.P.S.O. as we had openly stateed in this Assembly before the People's Action Party became the Government. It is being fully recognised, under the new Constitution granted to Singapore by the British masters, that the decisive say in internal security in this Island is the Internal Security Council.

On the amendment of the Appeal Tribunal, not only is the position of the Judges untenable but the amendment would bring more into line the existing differences between the Emergency laws of the two countries. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill moved by the Prime Minister.

3.30 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad to receive from the Hon. the Prime Minister certain assurances: firstly, that within the democratic system we should compete to build and not to destroy; secondly, that so long as the Federation finds it necessary to have an Ordinance like this one then Singapore must have it too.

Having stated our points of agreement, Sir, we have also to state that on certain points we do not quite see eye to eye. Firstly, it seems to be a growing practice for the Government to rush through very important Bills at very short notice and through all the three stages, thus giving the public no chance to weigh the pros and cons. The essence of democracy is to enable the public to have a share in the government of the country by being given time to think on the coming Bills and by expressing their views through their representatives. Sir, we would request that in future where possible - we know that at times it may not be possible - Bills should not be rushed through, and longer notice should be given to the public and to Assemblymen. I would suggest that where possible there should be a time lapse of at least one week to ten days between the publication of a Bill in the Gazette and the debate on it in the House.

Secondly, I think none of us - not even those on the Government side - would like to live in a country where there is an Ordinance like this one forever in force. We know that under this Ordinance citizens' liberties are curtailed. They do not feel that they are free as they should be. There is always the fear that through some error or through some wrong complaint, somebody might be taken in by the Police and locked up for an indefinite period. I have always quite appreciated the position that Singapore and the Federation of Malaya are going through a very unusual period and that there is a secret struggle going on underground, and therefore it is necessary for an Ordinance like this one to be still in existence. At the same time, we on this side feel strongly that despite any practical difficulties, there must be a right of appeal to prevent acts of injustice. Therefore, we feel that if the Appeal Tribunal is abolished, then that would be a retrograde step for this country. It could be said that an Advisory Committee would be able to perform the same functions. Sir, we do not think that this is possible because, when the Advisory Committee have made their decisions and the detainees have been sentenced, where a victim feels that he is innocent, he still has no right of appeal.

There is another point to remember - that there are usually one judge and two appointees on the Advisory Committee. Now we know that the two appointees, who are not legally trained, may be swayed by other feelings, and injustice may be the result. At this point, I wish to refer to something not quite pleasant which I might have hesitated to mention but for the fact that people feel that I should mention it here. We have noticed a tendency on the part of the - Government that when they appoint a Committee, a Board or a Commission, they appoint mostly - sometimes all - members of their own Party. We note that in the list of members of the Rent Conciliation Board practically all are members of the Government Party. Sir, to be democratic, there must be opportunities for minority or other views to be expressed, otherwise we run our Government along a one-track line. It is the essence of democracy, Sir, that the rights of minorities must be preserved, otherwise it becomes just a one-Party Government, and democracy as practised would be a Government of one Party, by one Party and for one Party; whereas we believe that democracy in essence means a Government of the people, by the people's representatives and for all the people.

Therefore, we feel that although we do not oppose this amending Bill in principle, we oppose the abolition of the provision for an Appeal Tribunal.

The Prime Minister: You oppose the judges.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Well, Sir, I say this: it is a case of whether we want to preserve for the man who is detained the right of appeal. A democratic system allows an appeal, otherwise it becomes a totalitarian system.

Sir, these are some of our views and I believe that before the Bar of world opinion, it is necessary to provide ways and means for an appeal.

Sir, the Government has the power and the numbers to override all objections but we trust that, in the interest of Singapore, we present to the world the view that we are running a democratic system, and that nobody will be sent to gaol without the right of appeal. I beg of the Government therefore that they will try and preserve the right of appeal in the amending Bill.

3.38 p.m.

Mr Rajah: It is accepted, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is necessary in the existing conditions in Malaya that such an Ordinance as this is necessary. There rare three main ponits to which this Bill gives rise.

First, is there a necessity for this Ordinance to be extended? The second point is: For how long is it to be extended? And thirdly, and by no means the least, the question of the abolition of the Appeal Tribunal and the substitution therefor of Advisory Committees.

On the first two points - that is, the necessity for the extension of the life of this Ordinance, and the number of years in respect of which the extension is necessary - there is unanimity on this side of the House and on the Government side. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a difference of opinion on the question of whether, in the existing context of public opinion and public reaction to Ordinances such as this, it is wise to change the Appeal Tribunal which has functioned successfully - I presume for the last four years - to Advisory Committees.

Sometimes, I admit, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary to deprive human liberties arbitrarily in the overall interests of the preservation of the State, but in our concept of Government, that is, a democratic form of Government, the liberty of a person is such a precious thing that where it becomes necessary to deprive a person of his liberty, then there must be corresponding provisions which will ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that the person detained or the person who has been deprived of his liberty, can avail himself of for the purpose of defending himself.

The one point on which every citizen in Singapore is agreed is the absolute impartiality of our Judges. It is a good thing that the public of Singapore have such faith in our Judges. Once the faith in our Judges is destroyed, then the fundamental basis of the rule of law will disappear. However, we are now in the fortunate position that our Judiciary is held in high esteem by the public of Singapore. If the Government should at this stage, after four years of a judicial Tribunal listening to the appeals of detained persons, change it suddenly to one of Advisory Committees and place this political prisoner - if I may use the words "political prisoner", Mr Speaker, Sir - in the same position as a thug, then I think there is something radically wrong. Under our existing law, the Appeal Tribunal consists of two High Court Judges and a District Court Judge.

The two points raised in support of this issue are as follows. First, that the Judges find it embarrassing to sit in judgment over executive actions of Ministers. The second point is that such judgments have to be formed by the Judges on data which they themselves do not consider judicial evidence. I cannot appreciate the first point, Mr Speaker, Sir, because very often in such a legal system as ours, Judges are called upon to sit in judgment over the executive actions of Ministers. The rule of law is the final control over the illegal acts of Ministers, and very often Judges of the High Court are, in fact, called upon to sit in judgment over executive decisions taken by Ministers. So the first point, Mr Speaker, Sir, does not appeal to me. The second point is a more valid one in that Judges are given evidence or statements which they normally would not accept in their Courts. I accept the statement of the Hon. the Prime Minister that this is a weakness in the system and our Judges should not normally be called upon to adjudicate on such evidence; but I would appeal to him to suggest to the Judges of the Supreme Court that the situation in Singapore is such that only the Judges themselves can adequately satisfy the members of the public that no injustice would be done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is proposed by this amending Bill to appoint as Chairman of an Advisory Committee a person who has seven years' standing as a lawyer in this country and two others who are either laymen or lawyers to sit with him. Recently. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been treated to appointments made by the present Government to judicial or semi-judicial Committees of persons who are openly and blatantly Party men. In the context of other appointments, this Bill would not have received the opposition that it is receiving but for this. When one sees, from time to time, appointments to judicial or semi-judicial Committees being made of persons who are openly, publicly and blatantly Party men, then one does get a bit nervous as to who would be Chairmen of these Advisory Committees. It is an undoubted fact that if a person of legal standing is appointed and two laymen are appointed to sit with him, then the tendency is for the two laymen to accept the advice of the Chairman, and if the Chairman is an out-and-out Party man, then surely, Sir, the faith in that Committee is destroyed.

3.46 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning this Bill which is to amend the P.P.S.O., we are of the opinion that in principle the old Ordinance is good. I do not deny the good intentions of the present Government in wanting to co-operate in many aspects with the Government of the Federation of Malaya, particularly in the matter of annihilating the Communists in the Federation or suppressing the remnants of Communism in Singapore. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, the strange thing which I would like to emphasise is this. If I were to relate a story concerning this Public Security Bill, it would be a long story, which has its background not only in our organisation, the U.M.N.O., but also in others who had voiced their protest against this Bill.

At that time, U.M.N.O. was a Member of the Coalition Government, and although U.M.N.O. youth had opposed it vehemently in principle, this Bill, however, was eventually agreed to by U.M.N.O. We too suffered as a result, because at that time some of my colleagues became victims of this Ordinance. Therefore, on that basis, we are apprehensive about this Bill, because, even when U.M.N.O. was in the Coalition Government, it could not prevent our own members from being victims of the Ordinance. However, because of our demands and appeals, particularly from U.M.N.O. youth and its branches in the Federation and Singapore, we managed to settle the matter concerning this P.P.S.O., which was passed by the previous government.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, this amending Bill today, in the opinion of U.M.N.O., is not fit and we cannot accept the substitution of the Appeal Tribunal for an Advisory Committee. There are many matters contained in the Bill which we oppose. Today, we have a Government elected by the majority of the people, and therefore we, the U.M.N.O., cannot carry out fully the wishes of the people from the point of view of the Internal Security Council, in line with the Federation of Malaya. But we must remember that doubts or anything which will undermine the peace of Singapore cannot certainly be overcome by the Government alone. For this reason, U.M.N.O. considers that the substitution of the Appeal Tribunal for an Advisory Committee is to monopolise the powers or to diminish the hopes of the detainees. It may well be that the detained persons are victims of cases without thorough investigation. So these victims will have no opportunity to pursue their struggle in a democratic institution.

Mr Speaker, if we want to follow truly the steps of the Federation of Malaya, I cannot deny that on principle this is not of benefit to the Federation. But there are many big matters which I think can suit the Federation of Malaya Government and which can be put into effect if the Government wishes to do so. We of U.M.N.O. are of the opinion that the Judges in Singapore are held in high esteem and unbiased in carrying out their duties from the legal point of view.

Therefore, in the circumstances, Mr Speaker, we cannot accept but we oppose the amending Bill in respect of section 5 which seeks to substitute the Appeal Tribunal for an Advisory Committee.

3.54 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has just returned from a lengthy sojourn in very pleasant surroundings in Switzerland, and he can therefore be excused for having lost track of events in this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has complained that we have introduced this legislation in haste, but I would like to remind him that the present Ordinance expires on the 20th of this month, and it is for this reason that we have to rush through this Bill in the Legislative Assembly this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members of the Opposition profess to be great democrats. They profess that they adhere very staunchly to the tenets of the democratic tradition. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to put a question to them here. Do you believe-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister must remember that he is addressing the Chair, and therefore questions can only be put through the Chair.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise for that lapse. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask hon. Members opposite a question. Do they now believe in the principles of democracy? Do they believe in the independence of our Judges? Do they believe in that principle at all? If they do, why do they ask that this Appellate Tribunal be retained? Have they not heard what our Prime Minister has just said? Have they not heard him read out extracts of letters which our Judges wrote to the Executive complaining that it is unfair and improper to put them in a position where they would have to make orders either validating or invalidating the actions of the Executive?

Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the Opposition Members and the people who are closely associated with them believe in moral rearmament, but many of them are wont to be moral cowards!

Mr Speaker: Order! I think I must overrule the words "moral cowards" with reference to Members of the Assembly. Will the Minister please withdraw the expression?

Mr Byrne: I withdraw. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, they are always looking for some sort of a screen. They must try to hide behind a screen. That was what the last government did. They picked some people up under these powers and took them into custody. Then they turned round and said to the chap, "Sorry, chum! We picked you up; it is true. But you know, the fact that you are still under detention is really not our responsibility. You failed to make out a case for your release. It was the Judges who decided your fate." That is the sort of thing that they wanted. They always wanted to screen themselves behind others. We are not like that. We accept responsibility for everything that we do.

Now, if it is so that in the exercise of these powers we have to pick up people and keep them in custody for a temporary period, we will accept responsibility for those decisions. We do not want to pass the buck to others. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know our responsibilities. Our responsibilities are to the people who put us in this Legislative Assembly. We know that if we abuse those powers, we will have to face them and explain the position at the end of our term of office. That is the position that we accept, and it is on those principles that we act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition are great at adopting a very negative role in this Assembly. They are only here to criticise us, to try and smear us, and to try and suggest that we do not act democratically. We have an Opposition not only in this Assembly, but also an opposition outside. There is a former Chief Minister who appears to be terrified at the legislation that we are introducing today. He has sent to all of us a circular letter telling us that the whole of our democratic traditions is in great peril. He says that it is our intention to pack the Advisory Committee with P.A.P. stooges and with a very subservient Chairman. I can assure Mr David Marshall that we believe in democracy as passionately as he does, and it is never our intention to place any P.A.P. stooge in any such Advisory Committee. If I could make a suggestion to Mr David Marshall - he need not really be so frightened of the position as he says he is. He need not fear any P.A.P. imprisonment. We could always leave it to the course of nature to operate in his case, and in good time he might very well find himself a refuge in some other place of detention, not necessarily a P.A.P. prison.

4.00 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in discussing the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill, I stand here to clarify the attitude of U.M.N.O. In principle, we agree to the extension of the P.P.S.O. But what we of U.M.N.O. object to is the replacing of the Appeal Tribunal with an Advisory Committee. In my opinion, this replacement would result in a system or regulation by which those who are detained under this Ordinance will be deprived of their right of appeal, or of the right to have their cases reconsidered, and justice done to them.

The Hon. Minister for Labour and Law has stated just now that the Opposition is here only to criticise or condemn the Government, as though what has been expressed by the Opposition has been done out of spite or merely to disrupt the functions of the Government. We have on numerous occasions stated here that the object of the Opposition is to put forward the views of the people of Singapore. It is therefore only right that our views and opinions should be put forward here in this Assembly. It should never be imagined that all that we say or do can be accepted by each and every one. It should never be imagined that our way of life can be adhered to by all. For that reason, we should give thorough and careful consideration to the merits or demerits of this Bill.

The Government, in exercising the powers under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, should also provide an opportunity to those who are detained to bring up their cases for reconsideration, and to prove their innocence. If no such opportunity is given to them, surely then there will be no justice. Certainly it will be seen from the amendments put up by the Government that the Ordinance will be even more stringent than what we have today. This is clear and cannot be denied. For example, the old Ordinance looks after those who have been released. With the amendments put up by the Government, this will mean that the Government can supervise these suspected persons. This has been in practice since the P.A.P. formed the Government. It is also known that meetings have been curtailed, which had never been experienced during the past Government. Is this one of the means to curb the freedom of an association or an institution? Or is the Government always afraid of the movements and activities of the people of Singapore? It may well be so. We note that people are now always full of fear about their fate, so much so that they have no place to voice their grievances or criticisms concerning their livelihood.

Even in the newspapers, we have seen a change of outlook. This will be evident if we compare the newspapers published during the previous regime and those published during the present Government. The Government, of course, have stated that they do not agree that the newspapers should voice their opinions in a manner which will lead to the separation of Singapore and the Federation. But there is more to it than that, I think, which has resulted in the change of attitude adopted by the newspapers, so that it is now different from what it used to be in the past.

4.07 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua): Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask your permission to allow me to read part of my speech on 8th October of last year:

"Sir, my Party's attitude towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance has always depended on the answers to two questions.

The first question is: To whom are these extraordinary powers being given? The second is: To what use will these powers be put?

The two questions, in fact, are inter-related. We can tell from the nature of the persons to whom these powers are given, how they will use these extraordinary powers.

My Party has, in the past, attacked the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, or the Emergency Regulations as it used to be called, because we know to whom these powers were being given and to what use they would be put.

The Emergency Regulations, as you know. Sir, were first promulgated by a colonial regime. It is true that the supporters of this regime claimed that the Emergency Regulations would be used to preserve democracy against armed Communist revolt and subversion.

Now it may be that the colonial forces genuinely believed that the interests of colonialism and democracy were identical. They were only a little less virulent in their attacks on the anti-colonial parties than they were in their attacks on the Communists.

So long as a colonial regime and its journalistic tools were unable to distinguish between democracy and nationalism, it would have been folly to have agreed to extraordinary powers to such a regime.

Well, Sir, the times have changed. Next year Singapore is to have internal self-government -"

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that by my silence I intended to give the hon. Member licence to read the speech completely. All that the Standing Order permits me to do is to allow the hon. Member to read extracts. He seems to be reading the whole speech. I do not think that is in order.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Sir, I was just about to finish my reading, which seems to me rather important.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I assist the hon. Member by suggesting that after reading an extract, he interposes one or two words?

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Sir,

"In fact, it will be hard for a small territory like Singapore to escape subversion once it becomes self-governing.

The P.A.P. therefore agree that extraordinary powers are necessary to preserve democracy, provided they are in the hands of a government freely elected by the people."

4.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to stress in this Assembly that it is because the P.A.P. had a definite policy before facing the electorate that the election resulted in a victory for the P.A.P. For that reason, with this overwhelming victory, we do not hesitate to say that we have received a full mandate from the people to present the Bill today. This is in the interests of security and safety of the people of Singapore as a whole. For that reason, there should be no doubts from any quarters about the Bill which we have presented today, particularly with regard to the amendments to the P.P.S.O. We have repeatedly said that only undesirable elements who are fighting for foreign countries need fear this Bill. So if there are some sections who voice their fears and doubts in the Assembly, it would appear that they have connections with them, and therefore might be affected by the provisions under this P.P.S.O. The P.A.P. Government is ready to face anything in the interests of peace and prosperity of the island. Therefore, we will not hesitate to take any action against undesirable elements when the time comes. We do not wish to have the Government dubbed as an irresponsible Government by taking irresponsible actions. But unfortunately, the Member who at one time used to be the Chief Minister in the previous Government is not present today. We see that previously there had been occasions when people were arrested and detained and later sent up to the Appeal Tribunal, where they were found not guilty and released, and were rewarded with a mere apology. Therefore, I feel that such a state of affairs showed that many people were victimised; they were arrested and detained first, and released later. I feel that because of this, we should give opportunities for the Minister first to review and investigate such a case and then to refer it to the Advisory Committee. By this means a fair and just line of action will be taken. Thereby a case will not arise, as it were, where a person first delivered a thrust with his knife, then threw it away, and then appealed as to whether he was guilty or innocent, as to whether the thrust was well-delivered or not. This, I feel, will cause grave injustice.

The Member for Farrer Park stated that he was concerned about the members who will be nominated to serve on the Advisory Committee. In the present struggle, I would like to emphasise, it seldom happens that the fight is between individuals. Rather, in the political climate today, it is a case of party against party. The action that my Party is taking is in the name of the Party. If my Party is not sincere, it will be left to the people to decide. Therefore, I say, this Government is responsible to the people. It may be that among members of the Advisory Committee to be appointed later there are Party Members; however, the fact still remains that we will be responsible for seeing that justice and fair play are carried out.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan has chosen to screen an old film by saying that when the P.P.S.O. came up for debate for the second time the youth of U.M.N.O. had raised their objections and opposed it vehemently, whereas their State Committee and their own representatives in the Government supported the motion. This is merely the showing of an old film depicting the dissensions in his own Party. It is not proper here for me to say what had happened at that time-

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Inche Yaacob resumed his seat.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Member for Bukit Timah had stated that I was attempting to show an old film. I hope that if he wishes to reveal what had happened to Singapore for the whole world to know, then let him do so.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): To that, I would say I was not talking about U.M.N.O., but it was the Member for Kampong Kembangan himself who said that the U.M.N.O. youth had opposed this motion. So, it was he and not I who was screening the old film.

Mr Speaker, the Member for the Southern Islands said that this Ordinance is more stringent than the previous one. I wish to emphasise that it is, in fact, more drastic only to those undesirable elements who indulge in activities which are in the interests of foreign States and not in the interests of the State of Singapore. Therefore, however sharp the knife may be, if it is not used to kill, I think we need not fear it. It is only those creatures for the slaughter-house or those who should be put to the dagger who need fear. I think that those who are law-abiding and peace-loving with an undivided loyalty need not fear this Bill, however stringent or drastic it may appear to be.

The Member for the Southern Islands also stated that since the P.A.P. Government came into power there were public meetings which were disallowed, as though the Government was afraid of the people's movements. As far as I know there were no such meetings which had been curbed or curtailed except when the Government was forced to act in the interests of peace and security of the people of Singapore. I fear perhaps there are certain quarters who are playing behind the scenes to make use of such meetings to disturb the peace and tranquillity.

Concerning newspaper publications the Member said that they had changed their attitude or outlook. If I remember rightly, Mr Speaker, since the P.A.P. came into power, it was reported that a representative of the World Press Association had been in Singapore because the freedom of the Press was in danger. But the representative had since returned to England and had said on his return that the freedom of the Press was not restricted and there was no fear, as was exaggerated by certain local newspapers. This shows that freedom of the Press in Singapore is really being enjoyed, in the true sense of the word. Concerning the outlook or the change of attitude of the newspapers, that is not the business of the Government. It is the business of the publishers. It is a matter for the publishers to decide. I think, Mr Speaker, we therefore need not fear. But as a fighter, we must sharpen our knife, not necessarily for the purpose of killing our enemies, but at least for self-defence and security so that our family, and for that matter, the whole population of the State, will be defended.

4.25 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, from what the Members of the Opposition have said two points are very clear, that we have agreed with the Government that the extension of this Ordinance is necessary and that we are glad and grateful to the Prime Minister for the assurances that he has given us. But I feel that there are two sections which need clarification, and I hope that the Prime Minister in his reply would clarify these. In section 3 subsection (1) it says:

"(1) If the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya or the maintenance of public order therein or the maintenance therein of essential services, it is necessary so to do, the Minister shall by order under his hand make an order -".

Sir, may I ask who satisfies the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? Is it the Minister or the Security Council?

The next one is section 5, subsection (3):

"(3) Upon considering the recommendations of the advisory committee the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may give such directions, if any, as he shall think fit regarding the order or direction made by the Minister."

Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is the constitutional head and, I believe, does not make his own decisions. He takes directives. May I ask again who will be giving him directions in this respect to carry out this section? Will it again be the Minister or the Advisory Committee or the Security Council?

As it appears it will not be the Advisory Committee because the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is free to treat the advice in whatever way he thinks fit. I have asked this question because in the Singapore Constitution, section 65, paragraph (b), it-

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that we are now on the Second Reading which deals with principles, and principles only. These points which the hon. Lady is raising could best be dealt with in Committee.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I will raise them in Committee.

4.28 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, firstly, I rise to support the Bill which is now under discussion. Before I elaborate on this Bill and on the amendments contained therein, I would like to emphasise that I stand by what I stated in this Assembly on October 1958, and which is contained in the Hansard that is in front of me here. It is important for me to repeat what I stated then and also what my Party stood for before it went before the electorate in 1959. Before we make any speeches concerning policy or basic issues, whether they be in this Assembly or outside, on behalf of the People's Action Party, we consider carefully what we have to say. Mr Speaker, this is what I said then. "If our Party is victorious in the elections on 29th May, 1959, the People's Action Party will carry on with the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - an Ordinance to provide for security and peace which we consider vital." This was not said lightly. We believed then in priority of security and peace because these all are very vital things. This Government is prepared to shoulder its responsibilities. If we are not courageous enough to face our responsibilities then I think we will be placed in a very dangerous position. Not only members of political Parties, but also the people will be faced with difficulties and dangers.

I gather from what the Members of U.M.N.O. said just now, that they are not very specific about their objections. They do not appear to understand how important this Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is. They said that this Bill was dangerous. An explanation about it has already been given by my colleague, the Member for Bukit Timah. The Member for Kampong Kembangan told a story of a crisis in his Party when the previous Government moved a motion concerning this Ordinance. As my colleague has said in his reply, this is not the place to relate stories about political Parties. We are here as elected representatives of the people to discuss matters concerning the life of the people as a whole. The stand adopted by the two Members of U.M.N.O. towards this Ordinance is extraordinary and strange. First they say that it is drastic and undemocratic. Then they say that it is important that we should have this Ordinance if we want a merger with the Federation of Malaya. I know that the Singapore U.M.N.O. has the same policy as U.M.N.O. in the Federation of Malaya. If the Alliance Government in the Federation of Malaya had an Advisory Committee to review cases connected with the Emergency laws, then I am sure the Member for the Southern Islands and the Member for Kampong Kembangan would argue how important it was to have such an Advisory Committee here also. But I regret, Mr Speaker. Sir, to say that both the two Members have failed to grasp what is contained in this Bill. I also find that there has been a difference of opinion between the two Members. They should find a point of agreement between themselves.

The Government has brought this Bill because it realises that it is necessary for the preservation of peace and security in this country. Also, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Hon. the Prime Minister said earlier, the P.A.P. had made clear its stand before it came into power four or five months ago. Internal peace and security, Mr Speaker, Sir, are matters for the Internal Security Council, the members of which are the British Government, the Singapore Government and the Government of the Federation of Malaya. We should be very careful about what we say. We cannot pretend that the Singapore Government has full powers in matters in which the British Government or the Government of the Federation of Malaya have also a say. However, we do not wish to hide behind a screen. As my colleagues have said, we are a responsible Government. Unlike the previous Government, we, as the elected representatives of the people, will not shirk our responsibilities.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the amendments to the Bill, it is evident that Opposition Members agree in principle that the Ordinance should be preserved in the interest of the people of Singapore and for the peace and security of this country. But what they are opposed to is the amendment to replace the Appeal Tribunal with an Advisory Committee composed of members nominated by the Government. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition Members need not fear or have any doubts because the members of the Advisory Committee will not be nominated at the whim and fancy of the Government. We will nominate members with experience who understand thoroughly the political developments in Singapore. Members of the Opposition need have no fear about the P.A.P. Government nominating only men belonging to its own Party to sit on the Advisory Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have more or less clarified my stand concerning the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The Opposition Members should take this opportunity to reconsider their views. They should not have any misgivings as to the aim of the Government with regard to this Bill. In all sincerity, we believe that the Ordinance will safeguard the security of the people of Singapore as a whole, irrespective of the colour of their skin.

That is all, Mr Speaker. I give my whole-hearted support to this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister, in reply?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Opposition enthused over the rights and liberties of the individual, democratic traditions, independence of the Judiciary, I wondered what would have happened had they won, and we lost the election. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that human liberties are better preserved with this Government than if the position were reversed. Can one imagine a Government with Mak Pak Shee, Seah Peng Chuan, Tang Peng Yeu, Vasagar and God knows who else-S.P.A./Lib. Socs, combined? I say that democracy would have flown out of the window, and the only people left would be those who stayed underground and would probably fight and finally destroy the system. Let us not be hypocritical about these things. We know, and they know, what the power positions are. Despite the little unhappiness that Members of the Opposition feel, that some of the actions of the P.A.P. Government may not be what they themselves would have taken, let them search their conscience and ask, "Has there been a denial or a negation of the spirit of reasonableness and tolerance which is the essence of a democratic system?"

Sir, we have been castigated by the Member for Tanglin for taking this Bill through on a Certificate of Urgency. May I explain, without giving away too much, that it would not have made the slightest difference to us whether we took this Bill through all the three stages in one sitting or spread it over three or four months? We were provident enough to foresee the sort of situations which would arise when we won the election. We took a stand last year for this specific purpose and the stand has stood the test of time. Why the urgency then? It is not because we feared public debate. The public debate started in October last year. The last meeting of the Internal Security Council was on 8th October. What the Deputy Prime Minister read out is the power position of the Internal Security Council:

"(1) The competence of the Singapore Government to formulate and implement policy affecting internal security is subject to the overriding powers of the Internal Security Council.

(2) In addition to consultations and decisions on questions of policy, the Internal Security Council is competent to make executive decisions for the maintenance of internal security in Singapore, and any such decision which has been communicated to the Singapore Government must be given immediate effect."

It goes on to (3) and (4).

That is the strict constitutional position. We could just fold our arms, and those sections in the Constitution, which allow for a situation to be overcome where the Singapore Government refuses to move in this Legislature, would have to be invoked. If our views, albeit somewhat different from those of the other representatives, were not given consideration, then that might have been the position we would have adopted. In other words, we would not have pushed through this Bill. It was because basically we felt that we had to honour our responsibilities as a Government, so long as our views are given proper weight and attention, that we have moved to put the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill through this Chamber.

Sir, the Opposition had only one point to make and that was on the alteration of the complexion of the review tribunal - from an appellate tribunal to an advisory committee. They reminded me of rockets. Once set on a fixed course, without corrective devices, they go out into outer space. Miscalculations are made; targets are missed; they go out into outer space never to return. The next step is to find a rocket with a corrective device; then it might hit the moon or go round the moon twice and come back to us.

Perhaps they did not know. Putting it at its best construction, they were unaware of the position. They were real, true democrats who have complete faith not only in the integrity but also in the sagacity of the Judges as administrators and executive officers.

The letter that I had read out is the complete and conclusive answer to any suggestion that the position was otherwise. I had given some Members of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they did not know of the letter. After all it was addressed to the last government and some Members on the other side were not Members of the last government. But having got to know of the letter, and then nevertheless to go on and hammer the argument that this is a negation of democracy seems to me a travesty of a debate.

Let me put the argument that they have advanced, succinctly in the reverse. The Member for Farrer Park said that one of the more laudable features of our system is the respect with which the judges are held. The fact that they are, not corrupt, or unfair or biased, is acceptable. For what purpose? For the purposes of administering the law, to interpret facts, make findings on them, and decide on the law applicable. If they are used for an executive purpose, and this is exactly the situation they do not wish to find themselves in - if they are used in an executive tribunal to say "yes" or "no" to an executive act, the consequences that follow will be the reverse of what the Members opposite have expressed they would like to see - public esteem of the Judiciary. Let us face facts. He whose appeal is denied and rejected is not going to accept the independence of that Appeal Tribunal. The Communist Party is not going to sit back and say, "Ah! Yes, we have been fairly and adequately heard by a panel of two Judges of the High Court and one District Judge. They have found our comrade so-and-so a fit and proper person to be detained. So be it." That is not the case. They systematically set out to destroy the prestige of the Judges, to smear them as stooges and executive instruments of the Government. Thereby you reduce their usefulness in the proper office for which they were constituted, namely, to hold a fair trial according to the law. It is as simple as that. That is why the Judges wrote in those terms. I became aware of this position, and so discussed the matter with the present Chief Justice.

Sir, in case it is thought that I had read out a bogus letter, I extended the courtesy, which normally are not expected of Governments, of taking someone who is not a nominal leader of the Opposition into my confidence. I was willing to disclose the circumstances in which that letter came to be written, and the advantage was taken of. The Member for Farrer Park knows exactly what the position is. What his leader, the former Chief Minister, wrote to the Acting Chief Justice; what the Acting Chief Justice wrote back; and what the former Chief Minister wrote back to the Chief Justice. Yet he comes here like an American rocket on a set course shooting out into outer space, unable to alter course in the face of altered circumstances.

Let me wind up the Second Reading of this Bill by harking back again to the long-term issue. In the situation in which we find ourselves, it is inevitable that these extraordinary powers will have to be exercised by whoever wishes to see that order exists and law is possible. Usually when lawyers talk, they use the phrase "law and order" but I think lawyers are the first to know that if you have no order, there is no law. You cannot enforce the law in a state of disorder. That is as far as this Bill provides - that in exceptional situations, in order that public order shall not be upset, extraordinary steps are taken by the Executive to ensure that the security of the State is not undermined. But whether you finally bring the whole of your people round to believe that the system you are working is worth preserving, because it works for the benefit of the people, depends upon your economic, social and political programmes. On the one hand, we dampen through these means any chances of disorder. On the other hand, we must ensure that the order that exists is fully utilised to bring about a completely different situation where the people not only are told, but can visibly see and feel that their lives are being altered under the existing system to their decided advantage. That is the function of an elected government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[The Prime Minister].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

4.55 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, could I ask whether the Security Council or the Minister satisfies the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as stated in subsection (1)? I ask this question because in the Constitution of Singapore, section 65 says:-

"The Council shall have the following functions, that is to say -

(b) to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Government of Singapore which are concerned with internal security;"

and it is logical for me to assume that this Bill is a matter of internal security and that the Security Council would be playing an important part.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, the answer is either the Singapore Government or the Internal Security Council. In the first instance, if the Singapore Government acts, then it recommends to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, i.e. the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is satisfied on the advice of the Government, that is the Cabinet. If the Cabinet should not be in agreement with the Internal Security Council, the Internal Security Council could then advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The Part of the Constitution which provides for this is Part VII of the Constitution, "The Internal Security Council", section 66:

"(1) It shall be competent to the Council to make decisions for the maintenance of the internal security of Singapore or for the due performance of the functions conferred on it by the preceding section.

(2) Every decision made under the preceding subsection shall forthwith be communicated to the Government of Singapore and it shall be the duty of that Government to give immediate effect to that decision.

(3) Where the Chairman of the Council is satisfied that the Government of Singapore has failed to give effect to any such decision as aforesaid, he may, by writing under his hand, so inform the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and advise him to make an Order giving effect to that decision; and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall make an order accordingly.

(4) The Chairman, with the concurrence of the Council, may, from time to time, advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to make a further Order revoking or amending any Order made under this section, and upon such advice being communicated to him by writing under the hand of the Chairman of the Council, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall make such further Order accordingly."

What it means is this: Let us assume for a moment that in the best liberal traditions we refuse to deal with a known subversive who is a member of the opposition Party, but the internal Security Council feels, however, that in the interests of order and progress such a person should not be allowed to be at large. Then, theoretically speaking, the Internal Security Council orders the Singapore Government and the Singapore Government advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. If the Singapore Government chooses to be acquiescent, then these provisions are invoked: the Singapore Government being acquiescent, the advice is directly given to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But I can assure Members opposite that if any Right-wing subversion takes place in Singapore, the first of those instances which I have mentioned will take effect immediately. In other words, the Singapore Government on its own accord advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and if any review is to take place, it will be in the Internal Security Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

5.00 p.m.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move that the whole of clause 5 be deleted from the Bill.

The Chairman: The hon. Member just votes against the question. I understood the hon. Member for Mountbatten had a question?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Yes, Sir. But as the Prime Minister has answered query No. 3, I believe it will be the same answer for No. 5. Do I take it that it is the same procedure?

The Prime Minister: I would say to the hon. Lady that the sections that I have referred to in the Constitution are comprehensive. On the wider issue as suggested by the Member for Farrer Park, may I suggest to him that perhaps in his eagerness to demonstrate his democratic tendencies, he has forgotten that if he suggests that we scrap clause 5 altogether - just say no, negate it - he is being undemocratic; because we, the P.A.P. Government, at least pay attention to the forms and the ritual of the Emergency legislation. If he just negates it, he is saying that we need not even have an Advisory Committee. I am sure that is not his intention.

Mr Rajah: With great respect to the Prime Minister, Sir, if clause 5 of the Bill were to be negated, the existing section would still remain in force.

The Prime Minister: With respect to the Member for Farrer Park, if clause 5 of the Bill were negated, then immediately the whole of this Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill would not reach the Third Reading, and it would lapse on the 20th October.

Mr Rajah: Clause 5, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may read it for the benefit of the Hon. the Prime Minister, says:

"Section 5 of the principal Ordinance is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor." So that if clause 5 of the Bill is not proceeded with and abandoned, the existing section will remain.

The Prime Minister: I must point out to the Member for Farrer Park that if the existing section remains in the Bill and the Judges do not act, this Bill becomes a nullity. It would not be worth our while proceeding with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the last Chief Minister could have persuaded the Judges to act, I feel certain our present Prime Minister could persuade them even better.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, amongst my few virtues, I do not possess the power-

Mr Rajah: Of persuasion!

The Prime Minister: Those who are unkind would have used the word "prostitution". Never mind. But I am incapable, in an executive capacity, to persuade people to do what I know to be manifestly wrong. The last Chief Minister at least had the excuse, that he went down on his bended knees and asked the Judges to do something which he could proclaim he did not know to be wrong. But that is not the position which I can claim.

Question put, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes 6; Absent 6. Ayes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Baharuddin bin Mohamed Ariff. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Noes. Miss. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Chew Chua. Haji Jumat. Goh Keng Swee. Ahmad Jabri bin Hoe Puay Choo, Mohammad Akib. Madam. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Kandasamy, G. Rajah, A. P. Lee Khoon Choy. Seow Peck Leng, Lee Kuan Yew. Mrs. Lee Siew Choh. Thio Chan Bee. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Lingam, S. V. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Absent. Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Bani, S. T. Ng Teng Kian. Chan Choy Siong, Ong Chang Sam. Miss. Ong Eng Guan. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lim Yew Hock. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ramaswamy, S. Ahmat, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Clause 5 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: I propose suspending until a quarter to six.

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I so suspend.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.15 p.m. until 5.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.45 p.m.