ALGERIA

3.58 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I signify that I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to proceed with this motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Assembly records its admiration for the determination and courage of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of French colonialism; and on behalf of the people of Singapore expresses its whole-hearted support for the cause of freedom for the Algerian people, and resolves that as a token of sympathy and support a sum of $10,000 be contributed by the Government to a public subscription in support of the Algerian people's struggle for freedom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the House may remember the enthusiastic welcome extended by the people of Singapore to Dr Ferhat Abbas, Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of Algeria, a few weeks ago. The warmth of the welcome given to him was a measure of the admiration and sympathy our people had for the Algerians in their bitter struggle against a tenacious and unenlightened French colonialism. This sympathy for nationalist struggles everywhere comes naturally to peoples who for decades have tasted the humiliation of alien rule and arrogant despotism. Though Singapore is not in a position to involve itself actively in foreign affairs, it nevertheless took the opportunity to pay its respects to the leader of the Algerian freedom fighters the moment he set foot on Singapore soil.

The French, with characteristic obtuseness, appear to have taken a dim view of the welcome accorded by Singapore to Dr Abbas. They thought it necessary to make a protest to the British Government over this. The British, for their part, not only transmitted this silly protest to us but also saw fit, presumably out of deference to French sensitivity, to deprecate the Singapore Government for having accorded the honours to an enemy of French imperialism.

This Western reaction to the welcome accorded to Dr Ferhat Abbas is typical of their insensitivity to the winds of change in Africa and to the attitude of the Asian peoples to the liberation struggles now erupting from one end of Africa to the other. What the Western powers have failed to grasp is that Africa has joined the global revolution of rising expectations and that this long quiescent continent is entering the mainstream of man's quest for human dignity.

The French, in particular, appear not to have learnt the lessons of their ignominious defeat in what used to be known as French Indo-China. Like King Canute, they thought they could order back the rising tide of nationalism in Indo-China. They tried to erect a dyke of repression against the tidal wave of nationalist revolt.

However, Sir, in the end, the dyke broke and French colonialism was swept into the sea.

Now in Algeria, the French imperialists are repeating the errors they made in Indo-China. The only difference is that in Algeria they are practising repression on a scale that far exceeds in brutality anything carried out in Indo-China. If the Algerian struggle for freedom has won the special admiration of peoples in Asia and Africa it has been because of the Algerians' refusal to be cowed and broken by the terrorism unleashed by French colons and by disgruntled French generals evacuated from the battlefields of Indo-china. The systematic and widespread torture of Algerian nationalists has been testified to not only by French liberals and intellectuals but also by the International Red Cross.

The savagery of imperialist repression in Algeria derives from the determination of just over one million European colons to remain permanently the overlords of some nine million Arabs. The six-year old war in Algeria is essentially an attempt by a Fascist-minded minority of European settlers to ensure the permanent subjugation of the Arab majority whose proper role, according to the French colons, is to serve as hewers of wood and drawers of water.

In this respect, the situation in Algeria is not unlike that prevailing in Kenya, South Africa and other areas where European minorities have settled among a non-European population. In Algeria, the European colons steadfastly refuse to abandon their position of a privileged aristocracy. Therefore, when confronted by the assertions of Algerian nationalism and Algerian demands for freedom, the French colons, backed by French generals, are trying to counter Algerian nationalism with repression and terror.

It was French extremism which forced a moderate and conciliatory Algerian nationalism to resist French repression and violence with violence of its own.

Dr Ferhat Abbas, for example, is no extremist. He was initially an advocate of an Algerian Republic federally linked to France. This modest demand was rejected by the French Government out of deference to the stiff-necked colons and French generals.

The French answer to the Arab demand for progressive devolution of power to the Algerians was force and repression. Today, some half a million French troops are engaged in what is euphemistically termed the "pacification" of Algeria. Until a few months ago, the French tried to dismiss the Algerian National Liberation Front, led by Dr Abbas, as an insignificant group of malcontents who in no way reflected the aspirations of the nine million Algerians. The European settlers comforted themselves with the belief that the Arab masses enjoyed being slaves in their own country.

However, this myth was exploded last December when General de Gaulle visited Algeria. European settlers tried to force Arabs to take part in the general strike to demonstrate support for a French Algeria.

The Arab masses, who had hitherto remained silent and sullen under European terror, gave vent to their feelings by raising the cry of "Arab Algeria". Green and white flags of the F.L.N. appeared out of nowhere by the thousands in all the major cities of Algeria.

Thus, the myth that the F.L.N. represented only a minority of Arabs was decisively exploded.

Sir, there is no doubt now that the Arab masses have clearly identified themselves with the F.L.N. and with Dr Ferhat Abbas. French terror and repression will not halt the march of Algerian independence. The war in Algeria has entered the last phase which must culminate in the demise of French imperialism. It may be that the desperate French colons and generals will be tempted to launch all-out repression and total war in the hope of prolonging their uneasy hold for a few more years. But as in Indo-China, the French Canutes must retreat before the irresistible force of nationalism.

World opinion and, in particular, Afro-Asian opinion, can hasten the demise of French colonialism in Algeria by showing their sympathy for the Algerians and by pressing for a negotiated settlement between the French Government and the F.L.N. The French Government should recognise the right of the Algerian people for self-determination and abandon the futile hope of by-passing the F.L.N. and negotiating with stooge Arab organisations — the so-called "third force".

Sir, there is no "third force" capable of bringing the six-year old war in Algeria to an end. The only force worth negotiating with is the F.L.N. headed by Dr Abbas, because only the F.L.N. has the support of the vast majority of Algerians.

When Dr Abbas was in Singapore, he gave this parting message to the people of Singapore:

`From all of you we ask not arms but support and pressure on France to end this war against our people. We are confident of your help.".

Singapore is in no position to offer massive help to the courageous people of Algeria. But we can respond to the request of Dr Abbas and sustain the spirit of the Algerian nationalists by token sympathy and support. I therefore propose that a sum of $10,000 be contributed by the Government towards an "Aid to Algeria Fund". The Government is confident that members of the public will add to this fund by contributions of their own. Contributions can be sent addressed to "Aid to Algeria Fund", the Prime Minister's Office, City Hall. I am quite sure that the response will be generous.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.14 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, the Opposition is filled with admiration for the determination and courage of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom and prays that their struggle will be crowned with success.

Sir, the Opposition listened with rapt attention to the speech of the hon, mover of the motion — the Minister for Culture — and the Opposition would have been filled with great admiration, as would have been the people of Singapore, if that speech had been about the P.A.P.'s struggle against British colonialism for the independence of Singapore. But alas, Sir, there was not a word about it. It was just a speech extolling the Algerians for their determination and courage in their struggle for freedom. It would have more substance and more meaning if it were to come from a people who are equally determined and courageous to fight for independence for the people of Singapore.

We, Sir, who have been ridiculed by the P.A.P. to be Right-wing are the very people who have brought self-government for the people of Singapore; and even previous colonial administrations have in their colonial way brought about constitutional advance for Singapore. But the P.A.P., Sir, who claim to be anti-colonialists and Left-wing Socialists, are not going to bestir themselves to struggle for the freedom of Singapore from the British colonial yoke. No, Sir, they are quite content with what we have got for the people of Singapore. They maintain and maintain repeatedly that the next step towards constitutional advance is through merger with the Federation—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill is really going very, very far away from the motion. We are now dealing with Algeria. He wants to convert this debate into a debate on the independence of Singapore. I cannot see how that is relevant.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, what I am trying to point out is that this speech of admiration would have had greater substance if it had come from a government imbued with the same determination and courage.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member had stopped at that, that is quite in order. That is a remark in passing which is quite in order in a debate of this nature. But when he goes into details and embarks on a speech about merger, I think, unless he can satisfy me to the contrary, he is very, very far away from the motion before us.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I beg leave to explain, Sir? The Algerians are fighting for complete independence from French colonial domination. This Government is not going to do it. They say that the only way to gain freedom from colonial exploitation, or whatever you like to call it, is through a merger with the Federation - that is their line. And yet they say, "We admire the determination and courage of the Algerian people." May I, therefore, continue, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid not. The hon. Member must now confine himself to Algeria, and Algeria alone, and the suggestion that there should be a gift of $10,000.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I bow to your ruling, Sir. Then we come to the second part of the motion. Sir, I have an amendment to propose to the second part of this motion.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order, except the format which has been altered.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In line 7, to leave out the words from "subscription" to the end, and to insert "for the relief of Algerian refugees."

In other words, Sir, this money that is to be contributed by the Government towards a public subscription is meant for the relief of Algerian refugees.

Sir, in a period of financial stringency when the emoluments of civil servants have to be arbitrarily cut by the Government, in a period of economic setback brought about by the presence of the P.A.P. Government, and in a period where new and increased taxations have to be introduced by the Government in the last Budget debate, it is felt that the Government should conserve all its financial resources for the welfare of the people of Singapore. But on humanitarian grounds, the Opposition feel that, as a token of our admiration and, of our support, the Government can expend the sum of $10,000 for the relief of Algerian refugees. The object of my amendment, Sir, is to make it clear that this money that the Government is donating towards a public subscription is meant for this purpose. It is right and proper that we should come to the assistance of the Algerian fighters in that we should give them some monetary support to ameliorate the hardship that they have suffered as a result of their struggle for freedom.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

`That this Assembly records its admiration for the determination and courage of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of French colonialism; and on behalf of the people of Singapore expresses its wholehearted support for the cause of freedom for the Algerian people, and resolves that as a token of sympathy and support a sum of $10,000 be contributed by the Government to a public subscription in support of the Algerian people's struggle for freedom.'

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "subscription" in the second last line to the end,

that is, the words "in support of the Algerian people's struggle for freedom",

and there to insert "for the relief of Algerian refugees".

That is to say, the last part then reads:

`and resolves that as a token of sympathy and support a sum of $10,000 be contributed by the Government to a public subscription for the relief of Algerian refugees.'

The Question now is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", and the debate at the moment must be confined, of course, to the amendment.

4.24 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let us not permit the Member for Cairnhill to draw a red herring before us. I will deal with what he has said about the P.A.P. struggle against colonialism. Let me —

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity later on to deal with that. At the moment, we should, I think, dispose of the amendment. In other words, the suggestion is that this public subscription should be for the relief of Algerian refugees, rather than in support of the Algerian people's struggle for freedom.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, let us be clear about the situation that is existing in Algeria. On the one hand, you have people who are indigenous in Algeria fighting French settlers on the other. The majority of the population in Algeria are Moslems. To all outward appearances, it would appear that this is a war between Moslems and non-Moslems, between Moslems and Christians.

However, Dr Abbas, in a Press interview at the Airport, quite categorically stated - that the F.L.N. (Force Liberation Nationale) is not waging a holy war. It is not a war between the Moslems and the Christians. The F.L.N. is not waging a war between race and race, between Algerians and French, between brown and coloured people against white. It is essentially a war against the domination of a European power over an African State. In this, we whole-heartedly support the cause of the F.L.N.

Until the F.L.N. was formed, there was no organisation in Algeria to fight French colonialism. The Moslems in Algeria, including the refugees, are whole-heartedly behind the leadership of Ferhat Abbas, who is the Prime Minister of the pro-tem Algerian Government. The motion that we are moving, that the Government should contribute $10,000 towards the cause of the Algerian people, should rightly be given to a representative body, a body that has obtained the recognition of those who are fighting against French colonialism. That money, including contributions from the public, should be delivered to the Provisional Government of Algeria. And if this pro-tem Algerian Government so wishes to donate this sum to the relief of their refugees, then we cannot stop them. But we would say this: that the Provisional Government under Ferhat Abbas is the representative body of the Moslems in Algeria, and it is quite correct, therefore, that any assistance towards their fight against French colonialism should be given to this particular body.

Mr Speaker, I therefore oppose the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill.

4.29 p.m.

The Prime Minister: May I just add to the explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir? If we were in diplomatic relationship with the French Government, then perhaps it may be necessary, for diplomatic and other considerations, and the niceties of international intercourse, to give this sum of money in such a way as not to upset the diplomatic relations between us and France. I think Members of the House have heard what the Minister for Culture had to say about what we think of the French protests and the British deprecation of our reception to Dr Abbas. These considerations do not bear on our action at all. We give this money in support of the Algerian people's struggle for freedom. In the process of that struggle, there have been many displacements of persons. If it is the view of the Provisional Government to use the money for the refugees, so be it. But why do we want to specify to the Provisional Government of Algeria that they must use it for the refugees? Dr Abbas has already said that he wants our moral support. He does not want arms from us. So we can be sure that this $10,000 will not be for the purchase of French sub-machine guns. It must be used in a manner which we think they are fit to decide. Therefore, I -think the amendment is really of no significance. There is no reason why we should dilute our frank and wholehearted admiration for their struggle for freedom. If the Member for Cairnhill wishes to move another motion at some other date expressing his sympathy and his feelings of depression and melancholia at the thought of refugees suffering as a result of their being displaced from their homes, we will be quite ready to support him then. But I say that this $10,000 is not a very big sum. Let us not quibble about what it should be given for. Let the Provisional Government of Algeria use it for refugees or for any other cause they deem fit. As I have said, considerations of our diplomatic ties with France do not apply, because none exists.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of the sober explanation of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and in order to make it a unanimous decision, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker: The original Question, as appearing in item 6, is now before the House.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, may I be permitted now to revert to what the Member for Cairnhill has uttered just now, in a sneering way perhaps, of the P.A.P.'s struggle against colonialism? Let us review the history of the P.A.P.'s leadership among the masses in attaining the new constitution under which we operate today.

In 1955, there were the general elections under the Rendel Constitution, the P.A.P. having been formed in December of the previous year, 1954. But at that time, we fully understood the implications of the Rendel Constitution, that it did not convey in any sense a self-administering government or give complete internal control of the affairs of the State. For that reason, the P.A.P. resolved to be in the Opposition during the period of the Rendel Constitution, so that we could reveal the weaknesses, the defects, and the sham of that Constitution four years ago.

During the period of the Rendel Constitution in 1956, the first Merdeka talks were held. Mr David Marshall, then Chief Minister, led an all-Party delegation to London. Our representatives at those talks were the Secretary-General of the Party, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lim Ching Siong and Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Let me remind the Member for Cairnhill that nothing came out of those constitutional talks under the leadership of David Marshall. In 1957, following the resignation and collapse of David Marshall, Mr Lim Yew Hock, now Member for Cairnhill, became Chief Minister, and he in turn led a second round of talks in London. However, let us be quite honest about how the trend of those talks was carried out; who provided the mass base, the mass support, so that the 1957 talks could be successful, and so that a new Constitution could be drafted out which would give complete internal self-government to Singapore. It is not the achievements of those — meaning the Member for Cairnhill and his colleagues — who were in the Government at that time. It was an achievement of the people of Singapore, of the masses, who had confidence in the P.A.P. That confidence had been very ably demonstrated in the City Council election and in the general elections in 1959.

Sir, the P.A.P. cannot claim that by itself it will lead Singapore to complete independence unless it is also supported by the masses. I have never claimed at any time that the Constitution under which we operate now confers upon the State complete independence. In fact, we have explained very carefully and clearly to the people the limitations under which we work even today. However, the Constitution has promised that in 1963, there will be a review of the Constitution, and we are determined to see that that clause is honoured. Because we have been a colony, because today we are a semi-colony, there is a mutual feeling of sympathy between the Provisional Government of the Algerian leaders, Dr Ferhat Abbas and Mr Sori and ourselves. It is because of this understanding of peoples who have in the past been under colonial domination that we, the P.A.P. Government, have moved this motion in support of the Algerian people's struggle for independence against French imperialism.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a bit confused, and I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister must be also. He said that the P.A.P. provided the mass support—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not permitting any debate on that aspect of the whole matter. I allowed the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement for the simple reason that the Member for Cairnhill had made a statement which requires an answer. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has been very restrained in his statement. From now on there shall be no debate on Singapore's independence or merger with the Federation or anything of that nature.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I shall fall in with your ruling. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I did not mean to debate it. I was asking for clarification on something that the Deputy Prime Minister had said.

Mr Speaker: It is too late.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, "freedom" and "liberty" are words which have aroused the feelings of people in many countries all over the world and throughout the ages. Sir, I am sure all of us want to be free ourselves, and in wanting freedom for ourselves naturally we want freedom for others also. Therefore, who is there who can oppose or dare to oppose the granting of freedom to other people? We have seen that France herself in the course of her history has had a wonderful chapter on her own fight for freedom. The words "liberty, equality and fraternity" were born in France.

An hon. Member: Rome!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Unfortunately, Sir,—

The Prime Minister: He is quite right — Rome.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Unfortunately, Sir, when people have got their freedom, they often forget to grant the same freedom to others. May I remind that, Sir, to the governing Party? Tragedy has overtaken Algeria to the extent that the French have forgotten the lesson they have learnt themselves so that there is now this tragedy in Algeria. We do hope, Sir, that France will do what Britain did for the Federation. Grant freedom amicably and help Algeria to have freedom without chaos.

Sir, in supporting this motion on the fight of the Algerians for freedom, we want to assert that we must never forget that when we ask for freedom for ourselves we must see that freedom is given to others, and that in Singapore there should be more freedom of speech and more freedom for the Press.

The Prime Minister: Sir, perhaps more Members of the Opposition would like to wax eloquent where the Member for Cairnhill has stopped short. I just want to make two points. First, this $10,000 is a gesture - we do not really expect it to help the Algerians win the war, not even if public subscriptions bring it to $100,000. But it is significant that in a world in which total war means total annihilation, the conflict is reduced to a secondary plane of a limited war with unlimited world support. There is pressure in the United Nations. There are expressions of sympathy and solidarity and we throw in our voice in support of the chorus on behalf of the freedom of the people of Algeria. This, of course, not unnaturally has made the Member for Cairnhill talk about independence for Singapore. Sir, I think there should be a proper time and place in which we should debate these matters. I have seen many gyrations and contortions performed by many a politician in Singapore — some of them on the Floor of this Assembly — but the gyration and the contortion and the volte-face that I saw was something, Mr Speaker, Sir, which will take us a few hours of debate. It is typical of his hypocrisy and—

Mr Speaker: Order. First, I did indicate that there should be no more debate on the comments made by the Member for Cairnhill anent the independence of Singapore. Secondly, I have always over-ruled the word "hypocrisy" as being unparliamentary in this Assembly. I ask the Prime Minister to refrain from continuing the debate on that aspect of the speech of the Member for Cairnhill and to withdraw the word "hypocrisy".

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have not the slightest intention of pursuing a debate which you have ruled should not take place. I was suggesting that at some other sitting in this Assembly, the subject which the Member for Cairnhill so blithely touched upon in passing should be dealt with at length in order that a proper exposition of the stands and the changes in the stands of the S.P.A., ex-Lib-Socs, ex-Labour Front, ex-Labour Party can be properly ex-pounded and exposed. I have no intention, Sir, of pursuing the debate—

Mr Rajah: Well, stop it then.

The Prime Minister: However, as to your second ruling. Sir, about withdrawing the word "hypocrisy" perhaps it may be less offensive to you if I were to say in its place a complete absence of sincerity?

Mr Speaker: Order. I must insist on an unqualified withdrawal.

The Prime Minister: The withdrawal of the word "hypocrisy", Sir, is unqualified since you have so ordered me. I would say that it is fair, polite, and civil to say that the speaker at the time he made the proposition was devoid of sincerity.

Sir, to the motion proper, may I add this, that it is my hope that not just individuals but institutions, associations, and societies could use this opportunity to make a gesture in the forum of world debate as to what they think of the French and the stupidities and brutalities of the colons and the French Army in Algeria, by contributing to this fund.

Mr Speaker: Mr Rajaratnam, in reply.

4.49 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, when a mouse begins to roar like a lion, then I think we have seen all that needs to be seen. So when I heard Members of the Opposition making violent anti-colonial speeches, I felt that I had seen all that I needed to see. But perhaps—

Mr Rajah: That is what Ong Eng Guan feels about you!

Mr Rajaratnam: Since the Member for Farrer Park seems to be involving himself in matters which do not concern him, I hope he will join in the Hong Lim by-election when the time comes.

The purpose of this motion, Sir, is quite simply and straightforwardly to show our sympathy not for any individual or for the refugees as such, but for the anti-colonial movement in Algeria. To that extent, we are requesting a token sum of $10,000 as a contribution towards the Aid Algeria Fund. Anyway, I hope, Sir, the S.P.A. will also join in contributing to this fund together with other members of the public and other anti-colonial fighters and so help to make the fund something worth remembering.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly records its admiration for the determination and courage of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of French colonialism; and on behalf of the people of Singapore expresses its whole-hearted support for the cause of freedom for the Algerian people, and resolves that as a token of sympathy and support a sum of $10,000 be contributed by the Government to a public subscription in support of the Algerian people's struggle for freedom.