RELEASE OF POLITICAL DETAINEES

7.15 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper, namely,

That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.

It is a pity, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in a debate on a motion of such great importance, the Prime Minister should conveniently absent himself from the State of Singapore. I also note the strange absence of the Member for Cairnhill at today's sitting.

The present detainees, Sir, were the result of two purges during the Lim Yew Hock Government, The first was in October 1956 and the second in August 1957. After the first purge in October 1956, the Prime Minister, who was then only an Assemblyman - the Member for Tanjong Pagar - moved a motion in this Assembly on 5th of November, 1956, Please refer to Hansard, Vol. 2, No, 7, col. 475. The Prime Minister moved:

`That this House deplores the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance against persons and organisations without producing any evidence to justify its action.'.

I shall quote extracts of the Prime Minister's speech on the great debate of 5th November, 1956. This is what he said concerning those detained in the first great purge in October 1956. Hansard, Vol. 2, col. 484, reads:

`If the Government wants to retain the slightest pretensions to democracy, it must bring the Member for Bukit Timah to open trial. If it cannot then it must release him. And that goes for all the other persons who have been detained.'.

I am giving emphasis to the last sentence, "And that goes for all the other persons who have been detained,"

Mr Speaker, in col. 489, the Prime Minister in the same debate continued:

`I [Prime Minister] may not always have agreed with some of my friends who are now in prison in Changi but I agreed with them on one thing: the determination to wreck the present colonial system as soon as possible. For I agreed with them that the colonial system is evil.'.

In col. 490, the Prime Minister continued:

`That [the purge] was the Labour Front's tactical miscalculation of the position. There should never have been this miscalculation. But the errors having been made, the least that the Labour Front can do is to bring these men to trial, prove the charges against them and satisfy the public conscience, they cannot, then they have no alternative but to release them.'.

In col. 584 [Hansard Vol. 2, No. 8, dated 6th November, 1956] the Prime Minister in his reply continued:

`The first task is not fighting the Communists. The first task is to wrest the rifle barrel from the hands of the British. When you have done that, then you decide what kind of Malaya you are going to have. That has been the stand of the People's Action Party and will continue to be the stand of the People's Action Party.'. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us refer to the second batch of detainees. On the second batch of detainees who were taken in during the second great purge in August 1957, let us hear what the Prime Minister said in this Assembly on 12th September, 1957. Please refer to Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 37, col. 2602. He said:

`The Government [Lim Yew Hock Government] has chosen to act in the way it did. Now it is up to them to explain their actions and what is more important to show that they have not arrested innocent people. If the Government thinks that because some of these men arrested have opposed us in the past we are not going to fight for their rights under the law, they are mistaken.'.

Going on to col. 2606, he said:

`Those who fought with us on the agreed Party policy we stand by. But even those in our Party who tried to undermine our policy we do not abandon. It is up to the Government to show that they are Communists or Communist agents. Until then, we shall press for their rights under the law,'.

Mr Speaker, all these words were said in September 1957. As the months passed by, and as victory was almost in sight on the horizon, and the post of Prime Ministership was within striking distance due to the active support of the unions and other mass organisations on the one hand and the concrete work of the P.A.P. in the City Council on the other, the basic stand taken by the Prime Minister in November 1956 and in September 1957 was gradually and skillfully altered step by step. I will only quote the major shifts and changes in the basic stand of the Prime Minister. On the 4th of December, 1958, which was not long after the victorious Kallang by-election and the P.A.P. was then recognised even by its enemies as the party of the masses and victory was already assured, the Prime Minister said in this Assembly, in Hansard, Vol. 3, No. 12, col. 1188 - Mr Speaker, please note the alteration in the Prime Minister's basic stand -

`Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one point worth answering, and it is the question which the Chief Minister has posed me about my ex-comrades in Changi. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one thing about the P.A.P. which perhaps those who form, uniform and re-form political Parties do not understand. When we form a Party, there are certain abiding principles that bind us together. They were my comrades in 1954 when I formed that Party. They are my comrades now in 1958. They will be my comrades next year. If and when anyone departs from the Party programme and Party policy, then he ceases to be my comrade.'.

Mr Speaker, there are a lot of adjectives and a lot of qualifications from now onwards. Mr Speaker, distinction is now being made between detainees who are P.A.P. members and detainees who are not P.A.P. members. I am only quoting extracts of speeches of the Prime Minister, and it is not my purpose here to impute that there are improper or dishonourable intentions or motives on his part. Let me give one example so that this change in basic stand can be better understood.

Mr Speaker, allow me to take the case of Soon Loh Boon. When the Prime Minister required the active support of Soon Loh Boon, who was the President of the Chinese Middle School Students Union, before his detention in October 1956, the Prime Minister even took the troub1e of escorting Soon Loh Boon home. He parked his Studebaker by the roadside in Hillside Drive and slowly escorted him home. I understand he now refuses to grant interviews to the parents of Soon Loh Boon now that he has become the Prime Minister, I can quote more of such examples. Believe me, the Prime Minister will still offer such courtesies any time when he requires the services of any particular person.

Mr Speaker, what is the effect of this skilful change? As I have said, for illustration I have taken the case of Soon Lob Boon. In his speech of 5th November, 1956, the Prime Minister fought for the rights of Soon Loh Boon. But in his speech of 4th December, 1958 - remember that this was after all the work in the City Council when he was equipping himself to become the Prime Minister - Soon Loh Boon had been placed under a different category because he was not a P.A.P. member. Now, there had been brought in two categories of detainees compared to September 1957, or October 1956. P.A.P. members and non-P.A.P. members - in other words, detainees who are P.A.P. members and detainees who are non-P.A.P. members.

Mr Speaker, however, as the days passed by very quickly and as V-Day was approaching nearer and nearer, a further distinction was being made. It was the 22nd of May, 1959, which was a week before polling day. It was at the height of the election campaign, when the P.A.P. was already confident of at least 40 seats. It was then stated that the P.A.P. would not take office unless former members of the Party who were intimately connected with the Central Executive Committee and who were then in gaol were released.

Mr Speaker, Sir, note the change. There are now three categories of detainees. Firstly, in class number one are P.A.P. members intimately connected with the P.A.P. Central, most of them ex-Central members; secondly, class number two, detainees who are P.A.P. members, but not so intimately connected with the P.A.P. Central; and thirdly, Mr Speaker, class number three, non-P.A.P. detainees. Mr Speaker, I shall just quote an example to illustrate again the difference. For instance, take the case of Tan Bok Teng, who I remember was the Chairman of the P.A.P. Paya Lebar Branch. His rights would have gone through these different stages, three different periods of transmutation, in the skilful but systematic toning down of the basic stand of the Prime Minister which he had taken in the two purges. It is necessary to quote extensively from Hansard and elsewhere former speeches of the Prime Minister to show the rightward trend of the political stand of our Prime Minister; and in order to refute any argument he may make that he had fought for these detainees in the Internal Security Council, Mr Speaker, of which I was a member.

From all this, one can notice the pattern of the trend in the political stand of our Prime Minister. During the first meeting of the Internal Security Council on 28th August, 1959, I made my stand clear. The motion in my name today was my stand at that Internal Security Council meeting: the detainees must be released. Since that meeting, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he, being the Prime Minister and the person who appoints or removes the other two Singapore members of the Internal Security Council, only shall speak. Mr Speaker, he is His Almighty the power to be! Let me refer to section 64 (1) which describes the organisation and the representation of the Internal Security Council:

`There shall be in and for Singapore an Internal Security Council (in this Part referred to as "the Council") which, subject to the provisions of section 70 of this Order, shall consist of the following members:-

(a) the United Kingdom Commissioner, as Chairman;

(b) the Prime Minister;

(c) two members appointed to the Council by the United Kingdom Commissioner;

(d) two members, being Ministers, appointed to the Council by the Prime Minister; and

(e) a member appointed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 70 of this Order.'.

Mr Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister is the sole authority for Singapore in the Internal Security Council. As a matter of fact, in the later meetings of the Internal Security Council, I was "advised" by the Prime Minister not to attend meetings of the Internal Security Council and that the Minister for Finance would take my place. My presence - despite the fact that it was a mute presence - had proved to be too embarrassing for our Prime Minister. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind of the stand of the Prime Minister. There were never any prior consultations by the Prime Minister with his two colleagues before the meetings of the Internal Security Council. There were never any prior consultations with the Cabinet. There were never any prior consultations with the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party. I tried to bring the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. into the picture by making it a principle that all Government business must first be discussed in the Central Executive Committee. The principle was accepted but, Mr Speaker, never practised. I also told the Chairman of the People's Action Party that I was unhappy about the position in the Internal Security Council and that all Internal Security Council matters must first be discussed in the Cabinet and in the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was a hopeless position. In a political party only when the rank and file of that political party could exercise its political thinking on the leader who is now enjoying all the earthly benefits of a Prime Minister could the political stand of the leader of that political party be subject to the collective will of the rank and file. The members of the P.A.P. tried to do it at a Special Party Conference, but the result is now too well known in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, on the question of these political detainees - on this issue - we have gone through four fights or four rounds. The first round was the Internal & Security Council meeting on 28th August, 1959, and a week later on 4th September, 1959 (which was a Friday), I was subject to the first of a series of secret trials for which the Prime Minister is now famous. The second round did not develop into a crisis. The attempt to bring the Central Executive Committee into the affairs of the Internal Security Council failed. The third round was in the P.A.P. Special Party Conference on 19th June, 1960. Mr Speaker, Sir, today is the fourth round, in this Legislative Assembly.

An hon. Member: Secret trial!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Fortunately, we have an impartial Speaker. I must congratulate you in this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Chair should be considered to be completely impersonal in these matters in that he should really be ignored as an individual but not ignored as an authority on Standing Orders.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker Sir, these detainees have fought British colonialism despite the fact that their methods have differed from those of the Prime Minister who fought the British once upon a time. Of course, there is now no more in him the anti-colonial fight. The British have been forced to grant certain constitutional concessions as embodied in the 1958 Singapore Constitution because of the mass participation of all sections of the people in the anti-colonial struggle. Out of one phase of this anti-colonial struggle, a new Government under a new Constitution was formed in June 1959, but the result of the common fight against the British came out in striking contrast for different people. The answers to the questions asked by the Member for Aljunied (Mr S. V. Lingam) are still fresh in our minds, Mr Speaker. Some are now enjoying life to the utmost, having enormous political "power" and immense social "prestige", driving about in fleets of chauffeur-driven cars with ample bodyguards and escorts, with State flags fluttering in the wind, with special Traffic Police on duty at strategic junctions to enable "S1" to glide and pass by without obstruction. Oxley Road, where the Prime Minister stays -

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hong Lim can assist me by relating all these remarks to the motion before the House. We are talking about a fight in the Internal Security Council. I cannot see how his remarks have reference to the motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, in my next paragraph you will see - and this is the pattern of my argument - that I am trying to compare the results of the common fight on which the Prime Minister had spoken in 1956. Could I refresh the memories of the Members of this House as to what the Prime Minister said:

`I may not always have agreed with some of my friends who are now in prison in Changi but I agreed with them on one thing: the determination to wreck the present colonial system as soon as possible. For I agreed with them that the colonial system is evil.'

`The first task is not fighting the Communists. The first task is to wrest the rifle barrel from the hands of the British.'

And nobody denies that the British still control the rifle.

`When you have done that, then you decide what kind of Malaya you are going to have.'

Mr Speaker, I am trying to draw a pattern. It was a common fight on which the Prime Minister agreed, but the results were different for different people. The homes, the seaside bungalows and the golf-links once used exclusively by colonial Governors are now the favourite haunts of the Prime Minister. We promised the people during the elections that we would convert the domains of Government House into a public park for the benefit of our l� million people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I do not know how the personal conduct of the Prime Minister has anything to do with his having to fight in the Internal Security Council. I must try to bring the debate back to its proper course.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, if at the conclusion of my argument you rule that what I am saying is irrelevant to the motion, you can then ask me to withdraw and I shall withdraw without question.

All have gone into empty air. Mr Speaker, Sir, Government House is a nice sanctuary not far from Oxley Road. One of the bedrooms in "Sri Temasek" -

Mr Speaker: Order. Then I think I must rule that all those remarks are irrelevant to the motion, because the hon. Member has not satisfied me that they are, in fact, related to the motion. Those remarks are irrelevant.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the anti-colonial struggle has come out differently for different people. What is the other side of the picture? In other words, what do the people on the other side get? The people who have fought harder than the Prime Minister are still languishing in gaol. Perhaps there are some striking similarities. The calm sea surface is their golf-links. They also have special seaside accommodation. They also have special bodyguards. They also get free meals at public expense. But there the similarities end. Is that not relevant, Mr Speaker? That is what I am trying to arrive at in my conclusion. So we have one of the most expensive Prime Ministers in the world. His extravagant expenditure on great luxuries and comfort comes from the pay cuts of the civil servants and from the taxes on the poor which should all be devoted to building more roads, clinics, schools, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have brought in what the Prime Minister said on the occasion of the two great purges, and I have related how he has shifted his stand most skillfully - like a professional lawyer - so that there are now three categories of detainees. He has tried to prove that he has no obligation to the second and third classes of detainees, I have also tried to give an account to this House of the two very strikingly different results for two sets of people fighting a common enemy - the British colonialists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arising from this debate, it is only decent that the Prime Minister who is today the guest of honour of British colonial governors should fight for the immediate and unconditional release of these political detainees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

7.46 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol) rose -

Mr Speaker: I have to enquire, of course, whether or not the hon. Member is making a prepared speech, because I have indicated in a circular that hon. Members who are speaking in a language other than English should try as far as possible to cooperate with the interpreters by giving them a copy of any prepared speech that would be made. If the Member for Punggol assures me that he has not got a prepared speech, then perhaps he can carry on. But if he has a prepared speech, I would rather that he first supply a copy of that prepared speech before I call him. Perhaps he could let me know.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only a short speech which I did not prepare earlier.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Hong Lim.

Before the P.A.P. came into power, during the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, the British colonialists arrested many political detainees during the two purges. How many of these political detainees have been released since the Lee Kuan Yew Government came into power? These people who were arrested were anti-British colonialists. Although we do not agree with their tactics but because we believe in truth and justice, we must request the unconditional release of these arrested political detainees. Let us speak frankly. Without these people who supported the struggle against the British colonialists and without the success of the P.A.P.'s work in the City Council, the Prime Minister would not be holding the position he now holds today. What has he shown to secure his present position? In the past, the colonial Governors were the objects of his attack but now these people are his hosts. Those detained by him were political workers. The Mayor of the City Council, Mr Ong Eng Guan, was his good friend, but now the Prime Minister attacks him. When he needs a person to help him, his purpose is to make use of such a person to benefit him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has now cut himself off from the people who were once on his side. For example, Mr Soon Loh Boon. The Prime Minister was once the adviser to the Chinese Middle School Students' Union.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister wants to face the people, he must fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of these political detainees. Today he must make his stand clear in this Assembly.

7.53 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, first let me on behalf of the Prime Minister disabuse the mind of the Member for Hong Lim that the Prime Minister is afraid to attend the debate today to exchange cudgels with him. The invitation from the Sultan of Brunei to the Prime Minister was fixed for today. Today's sitting of the Assembly was fixed last month. If the Member for Hong Lim had given earlier notice that he was going to move this motion, I can assure him that the Prime Minister would have been only too glad to alter the date for today's sitting so as to be present and to listen to all that has been uttered against the person of the Prime Minister. And I would like to inform the House that the Prime Minister had urged me to postpone today's sitting of the Assembly so that he could be present at the debate, but as Leader of the House I had to consider the fact that last month we had announced that we were going to move a number of Bills today and so I proceeded with today's sitting. I would assure the Member for Hong Lim that he should thank his lucky stars that the Prime Minister is not present today, otherwise he would be at the receiving end of it.

Mr Speaker, at the sitting of the Assembly on 14th October last year, I made a statement on the internal security position and our relationship with the Federation on behalf of the Singapore Government. In that statement, I clarified to the House the rights, powers and duties of the Internal Security Council and our part in the Internal Security Council of which the Federation Government is a member. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, let me refresh the memories of Members of this House, and in particular the memories of the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Punggol, on the role of the Singapore Government in the Internal Security Council. In Hansard of 14th October, 1959, Vol. 11, No. 11, at column 660, I said:

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

In addition to consultation 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.

The Singapore Government is competent to take executive action on its own authority in matters of internal security. For its part, the Internal Security Council is competent to take decisions in these same matters, and in so far as it does those decisions, by virtue of section 66, paragraph (2), endorse, supplement or override any decisions which the Singapore Government may itself have taken -'

Let me repeat the words "endorse, supplement or override any decisions which the Singapore Government may itself have taken ..."

"...and constitute binding directives with which toe subsequent decisions and actions of the Singapore Government must conform.

The Singapore Government should not take any action in any field which would be contrary to policy already agreed by, or decisions already taken by, the Council or would be likely to raise policy issues, or would have repercussions affecting internal security, without prior reference to the Council.'

What I have just said was fully endorsed by the Member for Hong Lim, the ex-Minister for National Development, when he stood up to support the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Prime Minister. Ninety-five per cent of his speech on that day as well as today was devoted to a lengthy quotation of what the Prime Minister had said at that time in the Opposition in this House in October 1958, We know that the Prime Minister has a tape-recorder but not until the Member for Hong Lim and his two colleagues moved over to the Opposition Benches did we know that the Prime Minister also keeps a parrot. Apart from miscasting or paraphrasing what other people have said -

Mr Speaker: Order. I was not quite certain whether the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister meant to liken the Member for Hong Lim to a "parrot". If he did mean that, I think he ought to withdraw, because the word "parrot" in this context is offensive.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I was thinking of Aesop's Fables.

Mr Speaker: I think the Deputy Prime Minister ought to withdraw that word.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I beg to withdraw. The only contribution by the Member for Hong Lim to the debate on the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill, recorded in the same Vol. 11, No. 11, col. 673, was this:

`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.'

When he uttered those words, the Member for Hong Lim was one of three members representing the Singapore Government in the Internal Security Council. It was his experience in the Internal Security Council which led him to conclude that the decisive say in the internal security of Singapore rests on the Internal Security Council and not on any single member of the Council. Or does he wish to say now that the decision of the Internal Security Council rests on the Prime Minister only, or on the Minister for Home Affairs only, or on him, Mr Ong Eng Guan, the third member of the Internal Security Council? If the Member for Hong Lim wishes to place the responsibility of decisions taken by the Internal Security Council solely on any single person, then surely the responsibility must also rest on him.

Although the Member for Hong Lim has not demonstrated any great love for collective leadership and collective action, I am quite sure he will be the first person to deny that his role in the Internal Security Council was an individualistic role. It is not that the Singapore Government has not fought for the release of those detained under the Lim Yew Hock Government. It was I who said those words quoted by the Member for Hong Lim a moment ago - that the P.A.P. would not take office unless former members of the Party who were intimately connected with the Central Executive Committee and who were then in gaol were released. We can be responsible only to our colleagues and to those who work with us. We cannot be responsible for the activities of those unknown to us, or be responsible to those who carry out activities for which we have not given any request to be done.

We have fulfilled our pledge to release those members of the Central Executive. Committee who were detained. There were eight of them, and at our insistence,, on 4th June they were released before we assumed office on 5th June. On 1st June, 1959, immediately after the elections and before forming the Government, the Secretary-General of the Party,, now the Prime Minister, stated that the record of the other detainees would be reviewed and justice done on the merits, of each case. There were 60 persons detained on 2nd June, 1959. From the day the People's Action Party assumed office,, 3rd June, 1959, up to date 32 persons have been released. Of those who were detained by the previous Government, there are now only 28 persons still under detention. It is not that the Singapore Government has not reviewed the records of these detainees. In fact, these detainees have written letters to the Prime Minister. However, it is not for the Prime Minister alone, or for that matter the Singapore Government, to release these detainees. It is the Internal Security Council whom these detainees, must convince that they are sincerely renouncing and repudiating the methods and aims of political forces which seek to overthrow the democratic system not only of Singapore but of Malaya, by means of subversion and violence as a whole, The efforts of the Singapore Government to work for their release will be in vain if the attitude of these detainees continues to be equivocal.

Let us recognise one simple fact. The Federation Government has been compelled today to adopt an anti-Communist stand because of militant Communist insurrection. After passing through 12 years of Emergency, it is hardly likely, therefore, that the Federation Government, who has the deciding vote in the Internal Security Council, will agree to the release of those persons who, by their actions, it is convinced, are advancing the cause of the Malayan Communist Party. It is our business to look after the welfare and well-being of the people which we know can only be advanced through ultimate merger with the Federation. We have no intention to jeopardise the welfare of the people as a whole for the benefit of a small group.

The P.A.P. was founded on a rising tide of nationalism in Singapore. However, it is one thing shouting anti-colonial slogans, and another thing knowing how to fight in the present context the forces of colonialism. The P.A.P. has carried the fight against colonialism to the present stage, and today we have internal self-government. In the next stage against colonialism, we will have to consider not only the prospects of political independence but also economic independence. If Singapore were the size of an island like Ceylon, or even the State of Johore, or Pahang, the possibilities for a completely independent Singapore exist. But it is not so, and therefore the key to political as well as economic independence for Singapore is a merger between Singapore and the Federation. That key is not with the British Government today, but it is with the Federation Government, it is the Federation Government and the people of the Federation whom we must convince that merger with Singapore will not lead to Chinese domination, or Communist conquest of Malaya and overthrow of the Federation Constitution. Merger between Singapore and the Federation is the prime consideration in our political thinking. And we shall not allow anybody to disrupt the good relationship which we have established with the Federation Government, or to endanger the prospects of a merger.

There is one thing that Singapore has in common with the Federation, and that is that both territories have a parliamentary democratic system. It is because the parliamentary democratic system exists in Singapore today that the Member for Aljunied can stand up in this House to ask the puerile questions that he has brought up this evening. But I do not credit the Member for Aljunied with even that degree of puerility, and therefore we must believe that he is only a mouthpiece. The Member for Hong Lim talks of secret trials within the P.A.P., and that this is the fourth round of secret trials in this. Chamber. Let the Members for Hong Lim, Aljunied, and Punggol ponder well. Let them thank their lucky stars that the liberty of speech exists in this House. In other countries with different systems of government, these three birds would be made to sing a different tune.

Mr Speaker, I will assure the House and the people of Singapore that the Singapore Government will continue to fight, as it has done in the past, for the release of those, persons who can convince not only the Singapore Government but also the Internal Security Council that they have abjured not only the methods but also the aims of political forces which seek to overthrow the democratic system by subversion and violence.

Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion by the Member for Hong Lim as follows:-

To leave out the words "the Prime Minister", and there to insert -

"the Government to continue";

to leave out the word "unconditional", and at the end to add -

"and the House urges the detainees to assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence."

The final amended motion, if you will permit me, reads as follows:-

That this Assembly urges the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and the House urges the detainees to assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: May I have the amendment?

Amendment handed in.

8.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker: It is a matter for regret that the Deputy Prime Minister has not consulted me when drafting this amendment, because a point has occurred to me, which I think I ought to look into before. deciding whether or not the amendment is in order. I therefore propose to suspend this sitting for 20 minutes. I will take the Chair again at 8.40 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.20 p.m. until 8.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 8.40 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on motion.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was, "That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government." Since which an amendment has been moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. I have had an opportunity of looking at that amendment and I rule that when it seeks to ask this Assembly to urge the detainees to do something, that amendment, in so far as it seeks to do that, is out of order, because the Assembly cannot hope to urge anybody who is not responsible to this Assembly to do anything. So I have suggested an alteration to the amendment to the Deputy Prime Minister, and if he will move the amendment as altered, then he will be in order. I have made copies for him.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I thank you for the guidance. I beg to move an amendment to the motion moved by the Member for Hong Lim as follows,

To leave out from "urges" in line 1 to the end and there to insert, "the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence".

Mr Speaker: The original Question was, "That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government." Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "urges" in line 1 to the end and there to insert, "the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Of course, hon. Members know that the debate may range over the words proposed to be inserted.

Mr Chan Sun Wing rose -

Mr Speaker: Does the Member wish to speak on the amendment?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: On the amendment. In Mandarin.

Mr Speaker: Order. Could I inquire whether the hon. Member has supplied a copy of his speech to the Interpreters?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Very well, Mr Chan.

8.50 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. We, being an elected Government and an anti-colonial Party, must solemnly answer the question - should we strive for the release of those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government for political reasons? Our reply is positive and has never been otherwise. As early as 14th October, 1959, the Deputy Prime Minister, when making a policy speech concerning the problem of national safety and challenge from Communism, quoted the Prime Minister and pointed out that the P.A.P. has no intention to become the hand-maid of the Communist Party. But we also do not have the intention to soil our hands wearing the same gloves used by the old Government.

In our rebuttal of the so-called 16 resolutions by Ong Eng Guan on 22nd June, 1960, we again stated our stand: "All those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government in the two purges should be released."

Our stand on this problem is unchanged today. The P.A.P. Government will still persistently request for their release in the Internal Security Council.

Those who are easily excited by this problem should weigh the Government by looking at concrete facts and figures. Of the 60 person detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government for political reasons, 32 have been released since the P.A.P. came into power. Of those still under detention, our attitude is still this - to deal with each case on its merits.

All those within and without this House know that the key to the release or the continued detention of these people is held by the Federation representative to the Internal Security Council. That is to say, the decisive factor is whether or not the detainees can supply sufficient grounds to help the Singapore Government convince the Federation representative, whose vote is decisive on the matter. Unless we decide not to follow the peaceful and constitutional way to fight for the ultimate aim of merger and independence, we must accept the limitation imposed by the new Constitution.

The new Constitution does not give us the sovereignty and liberty necessary for an independent country. Everybody knows this. But since we have accepted the new Constitution, no one can deny the fact that the people of Singapore have pushed history towards the right progressive path - the only correct path.

The Member for Hong Lim has again raised the question of political detainees. Will the release of political detainees negative the constitutional struggle? If so, and if he wants to be considered as a real revolutionary, then he ought to tell the people of Singapore in this House how bad and hopeless the new Constitution is and show them the way, the outcome and the prospect of such step. He should not merely talk of the release of the political detainees. If he is really earnest in engaging in social revolution and not pursuing his aim of individualistic heroism, then he should persuade the people to follow him in his cause. To win the support of a section of the community who are directly concerned with those political detainees is not enough.

With regard to the question of releasing the political detainees, our policy is that the rights and wrongs of every case should be dealt with in a just and fair way. But, if among those who are now detained there are some who do not believe in peaceful constitutional struggle and who harbour the design of replacing the democratic parliamentary system with a Communist regime, then the P.A.P. has no obligation to fight for their release and their freedom. Even if we do so, we will not succeed in our endeavour. But no matter how, we will still endeavour to convince these people to accept the idea of constitutional democracy to enable them to be released early.

On the subject of the three-cornered fight waged between the Communists, the British colonialists and the P.A.P., the Prime Minister has dealt `with it very clearly at the last Assembly sitting. Of course, what the Prime Minister said on the topic is not pleasing to the ears of the pro-Communists and Left-wing adventurers. However, I think they should seek solutions to the problem in concrete reality and not base their method on their subject wishful thinking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that there was no such word as "unconditional" in the Member for Hong Lim's motion proposed at the Party Conference in June this year. If at that time the people were not confused by his slogan, the addition of the word "unconditional" now would be of no use also. Another motive behind the Member for Hong Lim's motion was to put the entire responsibility of releasing the political detainees on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, so as to show that his expulsion from the Party arose out of his personal quarrel with the Prime Minister, and that he is the only person who is really anti-colonialistic. Anyone who is able to see the true colour of his individualistic heroism will understand the real facts of the event.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I deem it necessary to amend the motion proposed by the Member for Hong Lim.

9.03 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on the amendment, I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House speak in the manner he did this evening.

Sir, in this country and in our neighbouring country, Malaya, we are both committed to a democratic parliamentary system, and the objective of the Government here and the Government across the Causeway is to work this democratic parliamentary system to the best of both our abilities. Anybody who seeks to destroy this system and to disrupt and destroy the State is an enemy of the State. Therefore, the State must take action to see that it is not destroyed by its enemy. It is only with that intent and for that purpose that it then becomes rightful for a democratic system such as ours to bring in such an Ordinance which will put away from society people who are enemies of the State and who wish to destroy it. It is on those grounds, and on those grounds alone, Sir, that an Ordinance like this is permissible in such a system as we are seeking to operate. I think there can be no doubt in the mind of any Member in this Assembly, or anybody outside, that there are such persons in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore who are seeking to do that. In those circumstances, therefore, their detentions are justified and justifiable.

The original motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, dealt with only the question of detainees who were detained .by the Lim Yew Hock Government. Since the P.A.P. came into power, a certain number of people have been detained by the present Government - I do not know the exact number, Mr Speaker, Sir. So I was somewhat disappointed when I read the motion by the Member for Hong Lim, who has specifically asked the Government to use its best endeavours in the Internal Security Council only for those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.

I remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that on the last occasion when we met, the Member for Hong Lim was loud in his condemnation of the Government for having detained two members of the Press. They were also detained under the P.P.S.O. Sir, I was somewhat surprised that the persons whom he had made use of for his own purposes in the debate against the Government had conveniently been forgotten by him in this motion.

Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, said that when the PAP, came into power there were about 60 persons under detention, having been committed there by the Lim Yew Hock Government. I hope I am quoting the right figure, Sir - I think he said that 32 have been released up to now and that 28 still remain where they were. Sir, let us look at it this way. Assuming that the P.A.P. did not agree with the Lim Yew Hock Government that all 60 should have been detained (on the basis that the Lim Yew Hock Government had made a mistake), then I think we have now certainly reached the position that, on 21st September, 1960, the P.A.P. Government does certainly agree that in so far as the 28 detainees are concerned, the Lim Yew Hock Government had not made a mistake; whatever its views may be on the other 32 who had been detained.

Sir, I welcome the amendment of the Government and I support it. But I think the amendment does not go far enough. I think the Government is taking the correct view that if the Lim Yew Hock Government detainees mend their ways and satisfy the Government that their ways have been mended, then, of course, the Government will fight for their release. Sir, I think the position which applies to the Lim Yew Hock Government detainees should also apply, in all fairness, to the detainees who have been detained by the present Government. I do not think the Government can say, "We will apply one set of standards to those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government, and another set of standards to those detained by us."

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why not?

Mr Rajah: Therefore, I say this to the Government: the only basis on which the 28 are being detained is because they are enemies of the State, and the only basis on which the present Government is detaining people off their own bat - if I may use the colloquialism - is also because they are enemies of the State. So if the 28 enemies of the State previously detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government can be mercifully treated by the Government, the Government should equally treat those detained by them mercifully.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move an amendment to the amendment -

Mr Speaker: Order. We are now, of course, on the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." If that is agreed to, then the next Question will be, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." When we come to that Question, the Member for Farrer Park could rise and move simpliciter. Of course, he must say what he wishes to say on the subject now.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all that I could say on this subject, and therefore I will wait for the appropriate moment to move my amendment.

9.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Dr Sheng Nam Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the House. We on this side of the House are dedicated to the cause of the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya. The Opposition, of course, are entitled to their own beliefs and convictions, if any. But whatever their beliefs, they must surely possess at least some semblance of honesty and responsibility in their political endeavours. It must not be forgotten, Sir, that the democratic system of government, which we on this side of the House cherish and which the Opposition claim' to uphold, can only work and operate if everyone in this House, nay, everyone in this State of ours, is aware of his civic responsibility; and that fanatics and opportunists should be confined to where they really belong.

The motion of the Member for Hong Lim came as no surprise to us, for we had anticipated such a move from him ever since he has been disowned by and expelled from our Party. To him political manoeuvres should be geared to serve the selfish needs of petty politicians and not for the benefit of the masses.

Mr Speaker: Order. That expression with reference to the Member for Hong Lim or any other Member of this House is out of order. Will the Member withdraw that expression?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think this remark was meant to apply to the Member for Hong Lim. Perhaps if you may be kind enough to allow me to repeat what I have said - may I carry on, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Please, then I can rule again.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: To him, political manoeuvres should be geared to serve the selfish needs of petty politicians. Can that be allowed, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will now agree with me that that is an unparliamentary expression to use with reference to any Member of this House. Will he please withdraw?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: I withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, Sir. We on our part believe that political movements must be geared to serve the needs of the masses, otherwise such political movements must and certainly will be doomed to failure. It is for this very reason that the Member for Hong Lim has found himself cold and lonely, outside the warm spirit of comradeship within the P.A.P. The tactics of the Member for Hong Lim, Sir, are too well known to merit elaboration. Suffice it to mention that he has failed completely and utterly within the ranks of the Party, and he is now trying very desperately to attract attention by irresponsible and sensational slogans and motions. Just as a drowning man would clutch at a straw, an eclipsed and disgraced politician would snatch any trick so long as it could give him an unnaturally prolonged span of life, though such artificially boosted longevity may prove to be excruciatingly agonising in the end.

When the Member for Hong Lim moved his motion, I expected some brilliant dissertation on the need for the Prime Minister to do as he has suggested. However, I was completely disappointed and, if I may be permitted to recall his speech made just a few moments ago, I might say that other than quoting a few remarks of the Prime Minister, which he was wont to quote at all times, he was himself unable to make any genuine political contribution by way of political statements. Other than such repetitions and quotations, there is really nothing in the motion or in the speech that he has made in respect of that motion. He does not seem to be aware or to be able to understand that with the achievement of independence in the Federation of Malaya, the political analysis of this country has changed. Before the Federation achieved independence, it was our duty and our responsibility to fight the colonialists, to fight the British at all costs. With the achievement of independence by the Federation of Malaya, it is our responsibility now to light for merger with the Federation if we are to accept that independence for Singapore alone is not viable and not feasible, and that independence for Singapore can come and will only come after merger with the Federation. The stress and the emphasis of the fight has therefore changed. It is therefore our duty to lead the people of Singapore to fight actively for a merger and not for quixotic pursuits as suggested by the Member for Hong Lim.

We have exposed the Member for Hong Lim for trying to embarrass and discredit the Government in any way he can for little transient advantages. After all, weaker characters have sold their souls to the devil for similar ephemeral advantages. To the Member for Hong Lim, the P.A.P. has totally failed to serve his own personal nefarious purposes.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary does realise that he is skating on very thin ice. When he alleges that a Member of this Assembly is doing something to suit his nefarious purpose, he is completely out of order. That expression cannot be used.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will withdraw the word "nefarious" and -

Mr Speaker: Unconditionally.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: May I make a remark, Sir, that it is in relation to the motion that he has moved that I was tempted to use such a word to describe him?

Mr Speaker: That does not mean to say that the Member is in order. Please continue.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: I will withdraw it unconditionally, Sir. The Member for Hong Lim has failed utterly and completely to win over the loyalty of the rank and file of the Party. He now therefore embarks upon the destruction of the Party that had suckled and nurtured him, not for any scruples or principles, but because he was excluded from participation within the Party. The honesty, the integrity and the collective leadership of the P.A.P. is unquestioned by any sincere person. The cleanliness and the dedication of the Party is unchallengeable. The P.A.P. represents a genuine movement of the people of Singapore for a better way of life and a more egalitarian society.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to me that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is gradually going further and further away from the motion. I do not think the motion, or even the amendment, suggests that there should be a debate on the People's Action Party. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is possibly wandering a little too far.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech supporting his motion, the Member for Hong Lim analysed the stand of the P.A.P. and submitted that throughout the days of the struggle against the colonialists, that stand was changed. I was merely trying to show him that the basic stand has not changed, but that the circumstances have changed. The political objectives of the P.A.P. have never been changed and will never be changed. Yet the Member for Hong Lim is prepared to destroy this movement and put the clock back for many years to suit his own purpose. What kind of a revolutionist does he claim to be? Does he want chaos? Does he want riots and bloodshed for the people of Singapore all over again? Fortunately, Sir, the people of Singapore have seen through his scheme. They have turned a deaf ear to his sensationalism and his antics. Even more fortunately, Sir, the collective leadership of the Party is able to expose him everytime he tries a new stunt. Truth has a very funny way of bobbing up everytime the Member for Hong Lim tries to hoodwink the people and is himself exposed. Sir, we all know that the Member for Hong Lim has one out-standing talent.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must put a stop to this. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is embarking on a debate on the Member for Hong Lim. I do not think this Assembly should debate the Member for Hong Lim, as the Member for Hong Lim, in this particular motion. I have indicated before that if that is to be done in this Assembly, it must be done by a substantive motion. Let us try and confine ourselves to the amendment.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Thank you, Sir. I shall now read the original motion of the Member for Hong Lim which states:

`That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.'

Running through this motion, we are able to read in and between the lines the false premises messed-up with paranoic tendencies of a persecution complex. The Member for Hong Lim is still trying to persuade the people that his quarrel is not with the P.A.P. but with the Prime Minister, as indicated by the wording of his motion. Perhaps politicians with mental aberrations are unable to see their true selves as others see them. The Member for Hong Lim has worded his motion with vengeance towards the Prime Minister in a very personal way. He has intended the motion to be a double-edged sword to cut deeply into the Prime Minister on the one hand, and into the front and back benchers on this side of the House on the other. He has hoped to give the impression, through the motion, that the Prime Minister is the dictator of the Party, and all the rest of us here are mere stooges. He has also aimed to discredit the Prime Minister in the eyes of the progressive elements and to embarrass the front and the back benchers when it comes to voting. We have seen thoroughly through his mischief, and it is for these reasons, Sir, that the Leader of the House has amended the motion to read the "Government" in place of the "Prime Minister".

Perhaps it is because when the Member for Hong Lim was the Minister for National Development he was so preoccupied with his selfish schemes of empire building that he was unable to believe in the principles of collective leadership. Where he had himself failed, he could not believe that others could succeed. Going through the original motion, Sir, we can see glaring and deliberate errors both of commission and omission. As an ex-member of the Internal Security Council, the Member for Hong Lim must surely know and must surely realise that the British and the Federation Governments have the decisive vote in the Internal Security Council, and that however hard the Singapore Government fights in respect of the release of the political detainees, it would be in vain, unless the British and the Federation Governments are fully satisfied, `by the detainees themselves, that their release would not be detrimental to the interest of the Federation of Malaya. Hence the amendment

`.this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.'

This kind of deliberate errors of commission, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot be forgiven. I might add, Sir, that the original motion was worded to make it appear that the Singapore Government had never fought for the release of the detainees. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even before the P.A.P. formed Government the wheels were set in motion for the release of political detainees by the collective leadership of the Party. It is indeed true to say that the P.A.P. kept its promises fully that it would not assume Government unless and until our friends and colleagues detained by the previous Government were given their freedom.

Last June, eight of our colleagues came out of Changi gaol. Since then we have unrelentingly fought for the release of the remaining political detainees, and will continue to fight for their release. And I say here that all of us on this side of the House support full-heartedly the amendment of the Leader of the House.

The Member for Hong Lim may not be aware of the fact that since June 1959, we have fought for and have secured the release of 32 political detainees cut of a total of 60. It is up to the detainees themselves now to fight their own battles, and to help themselves. I believe that they have no need for people like the Member for Hong Lim to fight, unsolicited, their battles for them, and they have indicated so in no uncertain terms.

The conspicuous and deliberate error of omission of the Member for Hong Lim lies in his failure to state his stand on the most fundamental political issue. When he was with us in the People's Action Party, he believed in the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya. Now that he has been expelled by the Party, does he still believe in the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya, and Mr Speaker, Sir, I challenge him to make his stand. That is important, Sir, because that is the basic and fundamental political stand of any politician. And if he still believes in the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya, let him say so in this House, Sir, so that he may take into consideration his own political beliefs whenever he is struck by the anxiety to rant and to sensationalise again.

If he agrees that the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya is in the best interest of this country, then surely he must agree with us, Mr Speaker, Sir, that any power that seeks to overthrow this democratic system by subversion and by violence must be squarely met and boldly dealt with. He must, therefore, support the amendment of the Leader of the House, so ably reamended by you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The motion -

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope that remark does not indicate to anybody that I have taken part in the debate. The amendment is the amendment of the Leader of the House, and I only assisted in drafting it.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Perhaps I might be permitted to thank you for your assistance in drafting and your guidance. Perhaps it is uncalled for, since the Leader of the House has already expressed his thanks just now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion of the Member for Hong Lim appears very much to be and indeed is a bid for political support by progressive elements. He is doing it unashamedly despite having been told off in the most unmistakable terms. But then he has no alternative. Having been expelled by the P.A.P. from the left and being unacceptable to our friends on the opposite benches who represent ineffective political movements on the right, he has to crawl back to the very elements who kicked him out of the P.A.P. in 1957. Very few politicians, Sir, except those bankrupt of ideas and ideals, have had the pig-headedness to steer through dead-ends in similar circumstances. This is not the first nor the last time that the Member for Hong Lim will try to bamboozle the people with empty slogans. The collective leadership of the Party will deal effectively with each and every one of such motions that he may introduce into this Assembly, and will see to it that all his schemes will boomerang back to him and expose him for what he really is.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was:

"That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government."

Since which an amendment has been moved:

To leave out from "urges" in line 1 to the end and there to insert:

"the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." Mr Rajah to move simpliciter.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move simpliciter,

That the words "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government" be left out.

The motion will then read without that particular phrase.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed that the following words be inserted to replace the words which have been left out. These words are:

`the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence'.

Now an amendment to the amendment has been proposed, to leave out the words, "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Until that amendment to the amendment has been disposed of, the debate must be confined to that amendment only.

If no Member wishes to speak, I will put the Question on that amendment.

Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, on the amendment?

Mr Byrne: Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the ex-Minister for National Development is indeed a very strange -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think I have made myself clear. At the moment we are debating whether the words proposed by the Member for Farrer Park to be left out should be left out, i.e. the words, "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government". In other words, the issue is whether or not the motion should include all political detainees instead of being confined to detainees being detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.

I might also assist hon. Members by indicating that those Members who have already spoken can still speak on this particular issue. If nobody wishes to speak on that issue, then I shall put the Question.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Rajah: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 33; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 15. Ayes. Nose. Rajah, A. P. Baharuddin bin Seow Peck Leng Mohamed Ariff. Mrs. Byrne, K. M. Thio Chan Bee. Chan Choy Siong, Miss. Abstention. Chan Sun Wing. Nil Fung Yin Ching. Miss. Absent. Goh Chew Chua. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Keng Swee. Haji Jumat. Hoe Puay Choo Ahmad bin Ibrahim Madam. Ahmad Jabri bin Lee Khoon Choy. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Bani, S. T. Lee Teck Him. Buang bin Omar Leong Keng Seng. Junid. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Kandasamy, G. Mammen, John. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ariff bin Lee Kuan Yew. Suradi. Lim Cheng Lock. M. Ismail Rahim. Lim Yew Hock. Ng Teng Kian. Mohamed Ali bin Ong Chang Sam. Alwi Ong Eng Guan. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Pang Boon. Wee Toon Boon Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tao Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment to the amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are now back to the amendment moved by the Leader of the House, the position being that in the original Question the words "the Prime Minister to fight in the internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government" have now been omitted.

The Question is, "That the following words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted:-

`the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence'."

I might remind hon. Members that the debate now must be centred on the words that are proposed to be inserted. We have done with the words which have been omitted.

Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Por Tuck.

Mr Low Por Tuck: In Mandarin, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: May I ask the same question: whether the hon. Member has supplied a copy of his speech to the Interpreter?

Mr Low Por Tuck: No. Sir.

Mr Speaker: If it is to be a lengthy and involved speech, then of course there will be difficulty with the interpretation. If the hon. Member can assure me that his speech will not be too long and not too involved, then he can speak. We have had difficulty with interpretation in the past.

Mr Low Por Tuck: It is quite a short one, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the suggestion of the Member for Hong Lim on the unconditional release of these political detainees -

Mr Speaker: Perhaps I had better make myself clear. In so far as the words that were proposed to be left out are concerned, the debate is at an end. We are now debating the words that the Leader of the House proposes to insert. Any reference to the words that have been omitted will be out of order.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, concerning the Member for Hong Lim's motion to release the political detainees, that motion, in my opinion, is to be expected, because I have been with the Member for Hong Lim for several years. That is not strange at all.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has missed his opportunity. He is now going back to the motion moved by the Member for Hong Lim. We have, in effect, disposed of his motion. The Question before the Assembly now is the motion by the Leader of the House, that is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," and the debate must be confined to those words.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I fully support the Deputy Prime Minister's amended motion. What I have said just now is this: this problem has arisen because the Member for Hong Lim raised the question and, in my opinion, it is not surprising at all, because just now I have said that I have been with him for many years and I know his character very well. Personally I do not attack him or have any criticisms against him, but I feel that from this motion raised, we can see that the Member for Hong Lim shows that he is both anti-colonialistic -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has lost his opportunity. What he is saying is completely irrelevant to the Question now before the Assembly. What he is saying could have been said perhaps when we were dealing with the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Now we are dealing with the Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." That is all there is before the House.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, concerning this question, it is necessary for me to get to the root of the problem. On 14th October, 1959, our Deputy Prime Minister said in this Assembly - if you will allow me to read the text in English, it will be a correct quotation.

Mr Speaker: Order. Since the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary has chosen to speak in Mandarin, he must continue in Mandarin.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Then let me read from a newspaper what our Deputy Prime Minister has said. It is the Sin Chew Jit Poh, a local paper, dated 15th October, 1959. On page 1, it says [Hansard, 14th October, 1959, col. 661]:

`We agreed to the provisions for an Internal Security Council in June 1957, giving the Federation Government representative a deciding vote on our Security Council, because we recognised that that was better than giving the British Government the decisive say and that, in fact, if we achieved independence we can only do so as a Member State of the Federation, in which case the Federation Government would have a decisive voice in our national policies anyway. Therefore, until independence through merger is achieved, we accept the position of the Federation Government having a deciding vote in the Internal Security Council.'

Mr Speaker, today we are debating this question. The important point is this: when we struggled for a new Constitution, the Member for Hong Lim was at that time in the P.A.P. He also agreed that we ought to use the Constitution as a stepping-stone to a new stage. But unfortunately today our ex-colleague, that is, the Member for Hong Lim, completely ignored the basic source of this problem. He did not point out the basic source of the problem. He only led the people to believe the present circumstances. Concerning the problem of the political detainees, I believe it is not necessary for me to reiterate what my Party colleagues outside the Assembly House have expressed on our Party's stand. Being courageous and determined to fight against colonialism, the Member for Hong Lim ought to analyse the real cause of the problem and to point it out. He must not make this a superficial problem, and he must not confuse the people.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member please relate those statements to the Question before the House, which is, that the words proposed by the Leader of the House to be inserted should be inserted in the place of the words which have been left out? That is all there is before the House. If the Member can relate his remarks to the words which are proposed to be inserted, then he is in order. If he cannot, he is out of order.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now I have said that it is relevant to the problem, because, being responsible socialists, we must be able to untie the knot of this problem, and to tell the people today the real facts about the problem of the political detainees who were detained under the Lim Yew Hock Government. It seems that the Member for Hong Lim is very sympathetic to those detainees. He acts as if he is afraid of losing their help. He thinks that he could use this motion to revive his position. If a person -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary is not having regard to the ruling of the Chair. We are now debating the words which the Leader of the House has proposed should be inserted. We have done with the words which the Member for Hong Lim sought to include in his motion. All the remarks that are now being passed would have been relevant if the Hon, the Parliamentary Secretary had chosen to catch the Speaker's eye when the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," was before the House. He is now too late. He must now concentrate on the words which the Leader of the House has proposed should be inserted.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, concerning our Deputy Prime Minister's amended motion, just now several of my colleagues have expressed their points of view. Here, I do not have anything to add. From this amended motion, we can say that our attitude towards those political detainees detained under the Lim Yew Hock Government is very clear. From the beginning, our attitude towards these detainees has been clearly expressed by our colleagues. The release of these political detainees is positively being considered, but just now I have pointed out that the important point at present is this. In our struggle for constitutional self-government, we were restricted in many ways. At that time, we did not receive any motion or criticism by the Member for Hong Lim. Therefore, being responsible socialists, we must be able to analyse clearly this problem, and to tell the people the facts accordingly. If a person now shows himself to be different from what he was many years ago, by his point of view and by his speeches, then he may confuse the people's vision. Mr Speaker, I support this amended motion by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, although a certain part of this amendment reads:

`...that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.',

I take it that Government does not mean that any effort to overthrow the democratic system by means other than subversion and violence should be tolerated. I take it for granted that any effort to overthrow the democratic system should be prevented. Now if Government accepts that the democratic system must be upheld, then this whole amendment is a farce. Let us look at these two words, Sir, "sincerely repudiating". By using those two words, the Government is admitting that these people who are detained had been justifiably detained. In other words, as the Member for Farrer Park has put it, they were enemies of the State. Let us look at it this way. They were enemies of the State, and so they were detained, no matter by whatever government. But the mere fact that the Lim Yew Hock Government had put them in -

Mr Speaker: Order. Here again the hon. Member is wandering away from what is before the House. We have already dealt with the amendment by the Member for Farrer Park to delete the words, "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government". There can be no further reference now to those words, or any criticism of those words. The hon. Member has lost the opportunity.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was trying to do was not so much to deal with those words as to show that if this amendment goes in as it is, then it is not upholding the democratic system. That is why we cannot support it, because it is not democratic. It is making a division of the enemies, of the State. A certain section of them are more favoured than another section merely for the first two reasons, and that is not democratic. That was what I was trying to point out.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the debate proceeds, the issues have become clearer and clearer. We thought that the P.A.P. in power wanted justice and mercy for all detainees. But the rejection of the amendment -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tanglin perhaps knows the Standing Orders better than I do. But he must know that he had the opportunity of debating that particular point when the Member for Farrer Park moved an amendment. He did not choose to debate that point and he cannot now seek to debate it or to revive it.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: I withdraw that, Sir. But as the amended motion stands, it shows that the Government is not interested in justice and mercy for all, but that there is a struggle for control between the P.A.P. in power and the P.A.P. in the opposition. It looks as if the Government is only interested in those who are willing to signify that they have undergone such a change of heart that they are prepared to support the P.A.P. in power. But if they refuse to support the P.A.P. in power, and they are still inclined to support the Member for Hong Lim's group, then they cannot be forgiven. And all others who refuse to support the Government in power or disagree with them and are detained cannot be treated with justice and mercy.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The original motion as amended. The Question now is, "That this Assembly urges the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence."

Mr Ong Eng Guan, in reply to your amended motion?

10.15 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing much in the speeches of Government Members and Members from the Singapore People's Alliance that are concrete enough for me to give a substantial reply. As far as the Government speeches are concerned, how I wish they were made before the general elections!

In today's debate we have seen the two basic stands taken by Assemblymen in this House. One of them is taken by the three of us which is stated in our original motion, which is:

`That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.'.

That is our stand and it will always be our stand. The other 48 Members have one common basic stand, that is, the detainees should be released subject to certain conditions and qualifications. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a further development of the Prime Minister's original stand in 1956 and 1957 which I made in the speech at the beginning of this debate. This amendment is another alteration of or deviation from their original political stand since October 1956 and September 1957. However, there are some slight differences of opinion between those Members in the Government and those belonging to the Singapore People's Alliance. There is no difference in their basic political stand. The difference is shown in the amendment moved by the Member for Farrer Park. They do not want to be embarrassed by any mention of the arrest of these detainees by their colleague, the ex-Chief Minister, who is at present the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think if the hon. Member wishes to mention it in passing, he is quite in order. But if he wishes to expand on it, then, of course, he is out of order. He should have expanded on it when the amendment was before the House. But he can just mention it in passing.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The S.P.A. would vote today with the Government if it did not embarrass them too much. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I should have explained why the motion was to urge the Prime Minister instead of the Singapore Government. It was because the Prime Minister made all the decisions without prior consultation with myself and the other member on the Internal Security Council as far as I know, nor the Singapore Government as represented in the Cabinet, nor the People's Action Party as represented by the Central of the Party. That is why the motion was to urge the Prime Minister instead of the Singapore Government. It was because, having been on the Internal Security Council for many months, I found out, to my great shock, that the Prime Minister took decisions, some of which are of vital and fundamental importance, without prior consultations. I just had to keep quiet then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one issue brought up in my motion today is whether the Prime Minister has, on the Internal Security Council, ever fought for the unconditional release of these detainees. I know he has not. Excuses about merger with the Federation and the powers of the Internal Security Council were "good" excuses, but I was long enough on the I.S.C. to watch the antics of the Prime Minister there. There is no doubt that many detainees have been released; but as we all know, they were released on conditions. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister fought for the release of those eight in category one: he had no choice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, mention has been made of my personal conduct and I think I need reply in only one sentence. If I had wanted, I could have accepted all the offers of trips overseas, I could have been contented; remain Minister, with all the departments under my control; that is, if I had decided from the beginning to go along with them in their pro-colonial course. The speeches which have been made by the Government Benchers show that the departures are very serious departures indeed from their original stand. The issue today is not an issue of whether the democratic system will survive or not. I think the Government is trying to exaggerate and shift the issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the democratic system and I believe everybody in this House does.

The point today is, as I have quoted at the beginning of my speech from Hansard, that these are the people who fought with the Prime Minister against a common enemy-the British. That was before the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. became the Prime Minister. And we have two results for two sets of people. The issue today is a question of honour. It is a matter of people fighting against a common enemy and on principles that had often been enunciated by the Prime Minister in this Assembly. The Prime Minister should come to their aid at this moment and fight for their unconditional and immediate release, it is not as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has said, that it is now up to the detainees to fight for themselves, or as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has said, to persuade, convince and brainwash these people. The issue is primarily an issue of honour.

I agree with the Member for Tanglin that there are two P.A.P.'s in this House. One is the P.A.P. in power, which is in name only and does not represent the P.A.P. which was known to the masses before the general elections. The Member for Tanglin, without any hesitation, would support the P.A.P. in power on this vital issue if the amendment of the Member for Farrer Park was carried. Mr Speaker, we are the other P.A.P., the P.A.P. not in power - the real P.A.P. as the masses knew it before the general elections.

Question put.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 6; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 16. Ayes. Noes. Baharuddin bin Lingam, S. V. Mohamed Ariff Ng Teng Kian. Byrne, K. M. Ong Eng Guan. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Rajah, A. P. Miss. Seow Peck Leng Chan Sun Wing. Mrs. Fung Yin Ching, Thio Chan Bee. Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Absent Madam. Lee Khoon Choy. Abdul Hamid bin Lee Siew Choh. Haji Jumat. Lee Teck Him. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Leong Keng Seng. Ahmad Jabri bin Lin You Eng. Mohammad Akib. Low Por Tuck. Bani, S. T. Mammen, John. Buang bin Omar Mohd. Ariff bin Junid. Suradi. Chor Yeok Eng. M. Ismail Rahim. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lee Kuan Yew. Ramaswamy, S. Lim Cheng Lock. Sheng Nam Chin. Lim Yew Hock. Tan Kia Gan. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Tee Kim Leng. Rajaratnam, S. Teo Hock Guan. Sahorah binte Toh Chin Chye. Ahmat, Madam. Wong Soon Fong. Tan Cheng Tong. Yaacob bin Wee Toon Boon. Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions Nil

Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to.