BY ELECTION FOR THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF HONG LIM

4.27 p.m.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the by-election for the electoral division of Hong Lim will be the first election since this Government was formed 20 months ago. When will this election be held is in everybody's mind. The people do not accept the reasons given by the Government for the delay; or is the Government scared to hold the by-election? Every person in Singapore waits most anxiously for the by election to come.

The people of Singapore know very well the events which preceded the resignation of the former Member for Hong Lim.

An hon. Member: They were all lies.

Mr Lingam: We are aware of the many attempts, since the 16 Hong Lim resolutions, to silence Mr Ong Eng Guan. It was wrong for the Government to deny the electorate of Hong Lim their voice in this Assembly. It is also wrong to use tactics to delay this by-election, it is the inherentright of the people of Hong Lim to decide on their elected representative. The people of Hong Lim shall decide whether they want Ong Eng Guan or not. No others should decide. It is my belief that the people of Hong Lim will definitely fight against the acts of oppression and tyranny against their elected representative. They shall also decide whether their elected representative should be subject to third degree. They shall also cast their verdict on this Government. May I ask - would there be more attempts to silence and smear Mr Ong Eng Guan before the battle of Hong Lim begins? If there are, I can say that such attempts shall not succeed. The people of Singapore now know full well the true nature of this Government. The by-election for Hong Lim would essentially be a fight waged by the people of Hong Lim against the oppressive policies and the acts of tyranny and arrogance of this Government.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You are not from Hong Lim.

Mr Lingam: In this fight in Hong Lim, the odds will be against Mr Ong Eng Guan. The Government has the whole machinery of the State behind it. I ask - would there be a greater degree of control of the Press? Would Mr Ong Eng Guan be allowed radio time? Would Mr Ong be allowed equal opportunities in the use of Hong Lim Green and other parks in Hong Lim?

The Prime Minister: Will he repeat in Hong Lim what he said here?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lingam: When Mr Ong applied for the use of Hong Lim Green last time to explain to his electorate about the 16 resolutions, it was rejected, not once, but three times. There are many other doubts in my mind, but Mr Speaker. Sir, the people are with Ong Eng Guan.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information.

Mr Lingam: No, Sir, It is wrong to delay the by-election. In 1957, when Mr David Marshall resigned from the Assembly, the former Government held the by-election without unnecessary delay. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lingam: In 1958, the Kallang by-election was also held immediately after the resignation of a City Councillor. But contrary to accepted democratic practice, this Government wants to delay the holding of the Hong Lim by-election. Why? There must be reasons. The people know them. One of them is that the Government is not prepared to be defeated in Hong Lim, as it was not prepared to be defeated in Tanjong Pagar. We remember that the Prime Minister dared not accept Mr Ong's challenge to resign.

Mr Rajaratnam: Will you resign from Aljunied?

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister was afraid. Anyway, he has my full sympathy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two weeks have now passed. The people of Singapore demand that the by-election for Hong Lim should be held immediately and without delay. All delaying tactics or smears or other undemocratic practices would be of no avail. Let the people of Hong Lim make their decision.

4.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Siew Choh): Mi. Speaker, Sir, the Member for Aljunied has mentioned quite a lot of things. But let me first say that it is not unexpected that the hon. Member should talk of an immediate by-election today. He has, just like the Member for Hong Lim, tried to throw out smokescreens and lay red herrings across the path of everything. And now today he is asking if there is going to be a by-election. Everybody knows that there is going to be a by-election.

Mr Lingam: Go ahead then.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nobody can stop it. It is in the law. It must come. The only point we would like to ask the Member for Aljunied is, why this unseemly haste? Is there any reason why he wants it immediately? Or is it because he is afraid-

Mr Lingam: The people demand it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: that before that by-election takes place, some very unpleasant truths will be divulged?

First of all, Sir, we would like to trace the events which led to the present vacancy in the constituency of Hong Lim. Let us ask first the question: why did Mr Ong Eng Guan resign from the seat for Hong Lim? Has the Member for Aljunied made any attempt to answer that question? Did he say, "Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned because he needed a new mandate from the people."? Or did he say that Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned to tell the people of Hong Lim the truth about himself and the P.A.P.? Or did he say that Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned so that he could escape from being exposed as a purveyor of falsehoods in this Assembly?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the records speak for themselves. They have been indelibly imprinted in the annals of this historic session of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. Let me recapitulate the salient facts.

During the course of the 1961 Budget debate, the then Member for Hong Lim repeatedly made certain allegations and insinuations about the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. Despite the then Member for Hong Lim being called a rogue and a liar both inside and outside this House by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law, he never dared to take up the challenge to repeat outside this House what he had said under cover of privilege inside the House. The Leader of the House thereupon moved that this House condemn the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used the privilege of this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly; After the Deputy Prime Minister had put his case before the House, the then Member for Hong Lim pleaded for time to prepare his case and answer. The Deputy Prime Minister then graciously said - I quote from the unrevised transcript of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 19th December, 1960, page 25, line 4:

`Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, it is not the intention of the House to prevent the Member for Hong Lim from speaking in this Chamber; neither is it our intention not to give him time to seek advice on his motion. As he so decides, I will move, Mr Speaker, that this Assembly do now adjourn to Friday, 23rd December.'

And so, Mr Speaker, the scene shifted to Friday, 23rd December. After your ruling about the admissibility of the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister had been thoroughly debated by all the legal luminaries of this Chamber, if I remember correctly, the then Member for Hong Lim was given a chance to reply to the motion which suggested to him alternatives of either withdrawing unreservedly his unfounded allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law and apologising to this Assembly for his dishonourable conduct or repeating outside the Assembly when challenged the charges he made inside the Assembly. The then Member for Hong Lim - and I quote from the unrevised transcript of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 23rd December, 1960, page 44:

`Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to substantiate all the things I have said.'

Then there followed an interjection from Mr Speaker which reads:

`Mr Speaker: So do I take it then that the Member for Hong Lim does not wish to withdraw his allegations; he does not wish to give any explanation of them, and his desire is to try and substantiate the allegations he made in this Assembly? Is that the course the Member for Hong Lim is taking?' And the reply was:

`Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have nothing to apologise.'

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Ong Eng Guan could not substantiate his allegations on 23rd December and he again asked for time to prepare his case. The debate therefore was again adjourned to 29th December, 1960, to give time to the then Member for Hong Lim to marshal all his facts so that he could substantiate the allegations he made against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. But what happened on 29th December, 1960? Did we sit in Committee and listen to the array of witnesses and facts which the then Member for Hong Lim was supposed to have brought before us to substantiate his allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law? The House on that day was filled to capacity. The gallery was waiting for the self-proclaimed great revolutionary to set off the fireworks. But, Sir, what actually turned out was that there was no great revolutionary. It transpired that he was only a pretender. And instead of fireworks, we found a damp squib. All those brave words about substantiating the allegations came to nothing. Instead Mr Ong Eng Guan ran away by resigning his seat for Hong Lim. He could not and he dared not face the truth. That was actually what happened. He had to run away, and run away from what? From truth, truth which would have exposed Mr Ong Eng Guan as an opportunist, a vilifier and a scandalmonger. Following this, on 29th December, a statement was issued by the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee. Allow me, Sir, to quote the relevant section. It is a short passage:-

`He [that is, Mr Ong Eng Guan] has, among many other falsehoods, made grave charges of political corruption against Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr K. M. Byrne. It is his duty now to tell the truth either at a mass meeting in Hong Lim repeating all his lies or, if he is afraid to meet the people, then to repeat these charges before a Commission of Inquiry which will be open to the public and reported by the Press.

When the Commission has made a thorough investigation of the truth and made its report, it will be published to the whole of the people and then Mr Ong Eng Guan can come down to Hong Lim and repeat his allegations. The by-election will be held as soon as possible and we hope to meet Mr Ong Eng Guan in Hong Lim and expose him to be the dirty liar and covertly scoundrel that he has already been publicly called. We are confident that when the people of Hong Lim know the truth, they will pass judgment on him in a manner which deserves a coward and a rogue.'

And now the Member for Aljunied thinks we should have an immediate by-election. Of course, he quotes quite a number of other things. He is asking whether there is any control of the Press, whether he is going to be given radio time, and whether there is going to be a voice for Hong Lim, and rights of the people, almost suggesting that we might employ third-degree tactics on people who might stand for election. All these do not need a reply. They have been adequately replied time and time again in this House by Members of the Government.

It is always good to talk of going back to the people, but does he really mean it? If that was true, then Mr Ong Eng Guan should have resigned earlier when he was first challenged by the Prime Minister. Why did he resign only when he was left to face the music, when the Speaker had laid down the proper procedure to followed, and when Mr Ong Eng Guan realised that evidence had to be given on oath in Committee and he could not make more false speeches from his seat in the Assembly where all the speeches are privileged? Does this not show that he could not face the truth?

Is not this anxiety to have an early by-election merely a masquerade to run away from the truth? Now, the hon. Member for Aljunied thinks we should hurry the by-election so that the people of Hong Lim and the people of the whole of Singapore may be deceived. Again we ask: why this unseemly haste? Is it not right and proper that all the facts be revealed to the people? Why must the vision of the people be besmogged with smokescreens emitted from Mr Ong Eng Guan? Let the people of the whole of Singapore, not just the people of Hong Lim, know the whole truth first. Then after knowing the truth, let the people of Hong Lim decide as to who should be their representative in the Assembly.

And now we may ask: how did the Opposition react to all this? Mr Speaker, Sir, let us have a clear view of the issue before us. Grave allegations have been made against two of the Ministers, and yet the Opposition in this Assembly, and especially the Member for Cairnhill, -

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Huh!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -is not interested in pursuing the truth of these allegations. The Member for Cairnhill said, and I quote from the Straits Times of 31st December, 1960:

`He [in other words, Mr Ong Eng Guan] is now fighting the battle of the Opposition in the by-election against the Party in power.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the Opposition can think of and are interested in is that they should oppose the Government. They are not interested in truth itself. If those allegations were true, then they could bring down the whole Government, in which case it would mean new General Elections for all the constituencies in Singapore instead of just a by-election for Hong Lim. Is it because the Member for Cairnhill and certain other people who have been mentioned in the Press like Mr Marshall, Mrs Leon Soh, the Member for Aljunied, the Member for Punggol, all know that these allegations are baseless and false? And yet they want the people of Hong Lim to vote a new representative on the basis of false allegations and before the truth is placed before them? One irresistible conclusion is that the Opposition has, as somebody has said before, a vested interest in lies and falsehoods, and I hope-

Mr Speaker: Order. That is a direct reference, of course, to Members of this Assembly - that they have vested interests in lies and falsehoods. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should be a bit more careful with his language, and withdraw that expression.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw the word "lies".

Mr Speaker: Order. I want the whole expression withdrawn - "vested interests in "lies and falsehoods" - all of it.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Otherwise there will be a motion moved against him!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister has already categorically stated that a by-election will be held as soon as possible after the Inquiry Report has been tabled. It will not be long. We need no further assurance than that. But it is in our interests that before the by-election, we first know the truth. Let us first know the facts that have led to the resignation of Mr Ong Eng Guan and the consequent vacancy in the constituency of Hong Lim. All these are intimately connected with the coming by-election.

It is now our duty and our right, not only to ourselves and the people of Hong Lim, but also to the people of the whole of Singapore, to lay bare all the facts to find out whether Mr Ong Eng Guan was telling the truth or merely spreading malicious falsehoods. If they are proved to be lies, then his skin must be thick indeed if he dared to stand before the people of Hong Lim again. As for the Member for Aljunied, I do not think I am letting out a secret when I say that there are some who are of the opinion that there also ought to be a by-election in Aljunied.

4.53 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs just now brought in my name in this controversy, I feel that I should now rise and tell a few salient facts to the Government.

First of all, Sir, I must say that the Government has no right to think that this by-election is a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P. A by-election has to be held under the law. It should not be delayed because of what the Government thinks: that Mr Ong Eng Guan may stand as a candidate and that the Government have to meet Mr Ong Eng Guan at the polls. A by-election is for all people who care to stand as candidates in that by-election. And the Government should, therefore, not treat this by-election as a fight that they have to carry out against Mr Ong Eng Guan.

The previous speaker, Sir, made mention of a statement which we had issued to the Press, and he quoted the Straits Times. I would like to thank him for that quotation, because it strengthens the case of the Opposition - that the Opposition claims that the Press has been muzzled. To this extent, Sir - we sent a statement giving the reasons why we were not contesting the by-election, and that statement had been distorted to mean almost nothing.

Let me tell this House how that statement should have read if the Press had been fair to the Opposition. We said that we had no sympathy for Mr Ong Eng Guan - and we still say it here that we have no sympathy for Mr Ong Eng Guan. But we did say this: "that because of the fact that the by-election is going to be a battle between the Opposition and the Party in power which, by reason of its majority, could unjustly use its power to silence the Opposition". Those important words were left out by the Press which, according to the Minister for Culture, is free to publish what it feels should be published. It is so free that it distorts the statement of the Opposition. And we still say that it is quite free to do what it wants. I am not saying that the Government has told the Press not to print it.

Mr Rajaratnam: What did you say?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I have said many a time that there is such a thing as suggestive intimidation. And I repeat it here again: suggestive intimidation is more heinous than open intimidation, because open intimidation can be nailed whereas suggestive intimidation can go unchallenged.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You are wrong. You are not being intimidated, are you?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, if the Government had done some intimidation of the Opposition, then we would have been able to nail that.

Now, Sir, the fight in Hong Lim. The by-election in Hong Lim must not be taken by the Government to mean that it is a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P.

Mr Rajaratnam: Are you putting up a candidate?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Minister for Culture has yet to learn a little bit of culture!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have said we are not putting up a candidate because we feel that Mr Ong Eng Guan, although we have no sympathy for him, has a fight on his hands against the Party in power; although it is rather ironical that he should have come out of that Party in power to now fight that Party in power! The Minister for Culture, in his address at the Sixth Anniversary meeting of the P.A.P., said that Mr Ong Eng Guan-because we are not putting up a candidate - is being supported by us and therefore he is a Right-wing. Whereas not so long ago he was accused as a Left-wing adventurer. I do not know what he is-Left-wing adventurer or a Right-wing. I do not know.

Mr Rajaratnam: Nobody knows.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The people always look to the Government to tell the truth. And the truth, six months ago, was that he was a Left-wing adventurer; and the truth, ten nights ago, was he was a Right-wing.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Metamorphosis!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, because of what has been taking place in this Assembly during the last few sittings, the people of Singapore have taken too great an interest in this by-election that is to come. Because so much has been said and so much has been left unsaid, it is the view of the Opposition that there should be no delay whatsoever in the holding of this by-election. We are not concerned with the fact that the Government is very anxious indeed to try and make out a case against the ex-Member for Hong Lim, the ex-Minister for National Development, their ex-Treasurer of the Party, and these three "exes" may in due course be the real axe to chop out the P.A.P.!

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to state, on behalf of my Opposition colleagues, particularly on behalf of U.M.N.O., that on the problem of the ex-Member for Hong Lim, our stand is to know the truth in this controversy between the Government on the one hand and the ex-Member for Hong Lim on the other. We deny categorically that we would like to derive some benefit out of this controversy. I am shocked to hear the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs accusing the Opposition Members of trying to gain an interest in this affair. But as I said earlier on, we believe in the truth. Although we are unable to substantiate the truth, truth will always remain truth. We consider the action of the Government in moving a motion to suspend the services of the ex-Member for Hong Lim as being an act or a motion which would create a precedent in the future in this Assembly whereby freedom of expression -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now going back to the motion which has been adjourned sine die. He, of course, cannot do that. He must not now debate a motion which, although it has been adjourned sine die, is still in the possession of the House.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I accept your advice, but what I really wanted to bring home to the Government was this - that the attitude of the Opposition was touched upon. Let me say here that in this matter, the stand of the Opposition is that truth will triumph. Therefore, we sympathise with the statements made by the Member for Aljunied so that an early by-election could be held for the vacant constituency of Hong Lim.

5.05 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very gratifying to the Government to know that the Opposition are good watch-dogs of democracy, and their anxiety to see that the by-election is held as soon as possible will probably be fulfilled much sooner than they are prepared for. I suspect that all this anxious questioning on the part of the Member for Aljunied was with one aim in view. We, the Government, want to establish a simple question. Before Mr Ong Eng Guan presents himself as a candidate in the by-election, we think that the people of Hong Lim should have the right to know whether they will be asked to vote for a candidate who is proved to be a purveyor of falsehoods, or whether they are going to be asked to vote for a candidate who is obviously a man who speaks the truth. And it is quite right before we can do this. If we are convinced, as we are, that Mr Ong Eng Guan is a purveyor of falsehoods, that he has been using this Assembly to purvey falsehoods and to assassinate characters, then we say that he is not only a menace to himself and his friends but a menace to democracy. Because a very recent case was a gentleman called Senator McCarthy, who used Senate privilege precisely for this purpose, of using lies and falsehoods to assassinate the character of so many innocent people, so much so that at a later period of his political life, responsible newspapers were precisely making the same demand that action should be taken against him to prevent him from using the Senate as a cover to assassinate the character of innocent people, and that if he continued to do so, then he would bring democracy into disrepute and contempt. Not only democracy but Assembly privilege will become a weapon to spread terror among innocent people. So that is exactly what we want to establish: whether Mr Ong Eng Guan is a purveyor of falsehoods. Then let us prove it. If he is not a purveyor of falsehoods, let him go back and let the people of Hong Lim reelect the honest man. But as we believe he is not so, then it is our duty to bring him before a Commission and establish once and for all whether he is an honest or a dishonest man. Therefore, the Opposition knows this. What they are interested in is that Ong Eng Guan has now become a useful tool to fight some other battle. I am quite convinced, as they have taken great care to point out, that they have no sympathy with Mr Ong Eng Guan. But Mr Ong Eng Guan played with the adventurous Left once upon a time. He got nowhere. So now he has decided to use the Opposition to put him into power. And, therefore, Sir, it is necessary, because Mr Ong Eng Guan is politically quite a shrewd man. He knows that too open an embrace by the Right-wing would have been the kiss of death. So we notice that the S.P.A. statement has this invocation. "We have no sympathy with Mr Ong Eng Guan. But we hope that he will fight the battle of the Opposition." To a man for whom you have no sympathy, if you say, "Well, we are going to support him. We are not going to put up a candidate because he is fighting the battle of the Opposition", what is the battle of the Opposition? Is it the right of an elected Assemblyman to use Assembly privilege to tell falsehoods? Is that the right of the Opposition? Again we have Mr David Marshall also will this preface: "We have no sympathy for Mr Ong Eng Guan. But we think that he will fight a heroic battle for democracy." There is the leader of the Singapore Congress who also, I am told, is an animal lover - a sort of fighter for the under-dog - also coming out with the same statement to say that they have no sympathy and so on, but on the other hand, "he is fighting a great battle for democracy." Therefore, I say, Sir, that the Opposition's stand itself simply indicates this. They think they are going to use Mr Ong Eng Guan to have a little battle with the Government. Mr Ong Eng Guan thinks he can use the Opposition to fight his battle. Therefore, though the two sides think that they are fighting a kind of battle where each one thinks that it is getting the better of the other, what simply it all boils down to is this. The Opposition know that they either hang together or hang separately.

The other thing is that the Member for Cairnhill alleged that the Government, either by indirect intimidation or otherwise, had pursuaded the newspapers not to publish the magnum opus of the S.P.A. In fact, Sir, that statement was published in the Chinese Press, but to our consternation, it was not published in the English Press. As far as we are concerned, that statement makes it more than ever clear that the S.A.P.-the Right-wing - is now using a bankrupt Left-wing adventurer, or a bankrupt Leftist who tried to play with the Left-wing and who could not get anywhere. Therefore, they have decided to use him for their political ends. You will notice, Sir, that so far the only support that has come to Mr Ong Eng Guan is not from Socialist groups, not from workers and not from trade unions, but from the Right-wing, who once upon a time were claiming that Mr Ong Eng Guan was a menace and so on. Now they are saying that he is becoming a fighter for democracy. Therefore, I say, Sir, in this battle, as far as the P.A.P. is concerned, we regard Mr Ong Eng Guan and the Opposition - as far as U.M.N.O. is concerned, I am quite glad they have not yet made a statement - as having flocked together as the Opposition. As far as we are concerned, we know that Mr Ong Eng Guan is merely a shield, a battering ram to be used by the S.P.A., the Singapore Congress, and the Workers' Party. And in that strain we are prepared to take on all corners at Hong Lim, and if the Member for Aljunied feels that there should be a by-election in Aljunied, then we are prepared to take him on there too.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Left-wing groups or the trade unionists will support Mr Ong Eng Guan or not one cannot say that today. That will only be known if Mr Ong Eng Guan is allowed to contest the Hong Lim seat. Then, and only then, will that be known. That point really does not interest me this afternoon. What really interests me, Mr Speaker, this afternoon is the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs who, by the nature of his documented speech, gave me the impression that he was speaking for the Government on this matter. He said, "What is the hurry to hold this by-election?" Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government seems to think that the by-election in Hong Lim is a matter between the P.A.P. and Mr Ong Eng Guan, and that it does not concern anybody else. Might I suggest to them and remind them that in this matter the paramount consideration is not the P.A.P. Government, or Mr Ong Eng Guan, but the electorate of Hong Lim? If the Government choose to delay this election because they want to go to the election strengthened, then it is the electorate of Hong Lim that is suffering. The point of representation in the Assembly, Mr Speaker, is this: that no part of the island should be without representation. At the moment, Hong Lim is without representation, and in the democratic concept of parliamentary government, that should not be so. The business of every government is to see that when a vacancy by resignation, death or other cause occurs, a writ of election is expeditiously issued and an election takes place. Listening to the speeches from the Government benches, one gets the idea that this is a private matter between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P. in power.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the original motion which led to this resignation, you ruled that this was a matter which concerned the whole House, and we accepted your ruling and we debated that motion on that basis. The subsequent statements of the Government in this Assembly today confirm the impression that some of us might have had, that this is a fight they are continuing against Mr Ong Eng Guan personally, and that they are not concerned with the electorate of Hong Lim. Whether Hong Lim is represented or not does not seem to matter two hoots to the Government. All that they are interested in is to go to the electorate of Hong Lim only when their hand is strengthened.

5.17 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I really did not wish to speak on this motion for the adjournment, but I want to dispel any impression which the Member for Farrer Park might have given when he said just now that every part of the island must always at any time be represented in this Chamber. That has not been according to facts.

During the period of the previous Government, the Member for Bukit Timah was detained under the P.P.S.O. for several years, and during that period, the electorate of Bukit Timah had no representative in this Chamber. Now, what we wish to say quite clearly is this; that the people of Hong Lim should be given the opportunity to see light. It was not the Government who forced the resignation of Mr Ong Eng Guan. Perhaps the electorate of Hong Lim should even ask - upon what grounds or upon what right had their elected representative in tendering his resignation from this Chamber? If Mr Ong Eng Guan, when he was their representative, were a responsible person, he would have considered not so much his own skin and not so much his own pride, but he should have considered the interests of the people whom he represented. Did he do it? If he had thought more deliberately and carefully, he would not have quitted this Chamber in such a hurry and indecent haste.

When we say we will have the by-election, we mean it. At the last sitting of the Assembly, in moving the motion for adjournment of the motion to censure the ex-Member for Hong Lim for his conduct in purveying falsehoods, I said very clearly that we were going to set up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the allegations made in this Chamber; that Mr Ong Eng Guan had dared not appear in this Chamber to substantiate what he had said, or to substantiate what he said he would substantiate. It is important that not only the electorate of Hong Lim, but also the public at large, including the public in the Federation, should be given an opportunity to know what is right and what is wrong. If we were really afraid of a by-election, what we could have done was, very simply, not to have any inquiries made either in this Chamber or outside. But, as Members in this House know, a Commission of Inquiry has already been established. It will be sitting next week and we hope that a report will soon be produced by the Commission; and when that has been done, it will be duly tabled in this House, and the by-election will then be held. It is important that at this juncture we should not confuse either the electorate of Hong Lim or the people of Singapore on the issues that are involved. Whether a man who is prepared to be as unscrupulous as to tell lies in this Chamber should be considered worthy of representing a section of the people of Singapore - that is the main issue. We will wait for the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and we certainly hope that this time Mr Ong Eng Guan does not also run away from the Commission of Inquiry as he has run away from this Chamber.

5.27 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what amuses us Members of the Opposition is that when the former Member for Hong Lim was the Minister for National Development on the Government side and used the same tactics which he later used against the Government, there was no protest at all from the Government benches. He accused, if I remember rightly, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park roundly, and I think the Government benches were just amused. But when the Member for Hong Lim came to the Opposition-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am just wondering how all this has anything to do with the matter we are discussing-the by-elections in Hong Lim? Past conduct of that nature, surely, has nothing to do with the by-election.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I mention that because an accusation has been made that we are siding with the Member for Hong Lim and using him as a tool; whereas if anything. Sir, by the fact that we had been at the receiving end here for a long time when the Member for Hong Lim was the Minister for National Development, one would expect that we would be against the Member for Hong Lim in the by-election. That is why I wanted to clear the air: that we here were more tolerant, more charitable and more willing to receive and yet give the Government a fight. Now, in the Hong Lim by-election, Sir, instead of having the by-election quickly, the Government apparently is not prepared to take what we before were able to take from him when he was their comrade. I would suggest, Sir, that they should show the same spirit of charitableness and patience as we showed them when the Member for Hong Lim was on their side.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock to Wednesday, 22nd February,1961.