INQUIRY COMMISSION'S REPORT ON MR ONG ENG GUAN'S ALLEGATIONS (Motion of Condemnation)

2.37 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That this Assembly takes note of the Report of the Inquiry Commission into certain allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly on the 10th and 12th December, 1960, as contained in Paper Cmd. 7 of 1961, and condemns Mr Ong Eng Guan for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly. During the debate on the Budget Estimates in December last year, Mr Ong Eng Guan, then Member for Hong Lim, made certain allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. Because Mr Ong Eng Guan did not substantiate those allegations, I on the 19th December, 1960, moved a motion in the following terms:-

`That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly; that he be suspended from the service of this Assembly until such time as (i) he apologises to this Assembly for his dishonourable conduct; (ii) he unreservedly withdraws his unfounded allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law; and (iii) he assures the Assembly that he will not persist in abusing his privilege in this Assembly by uttering malicious falsehoods, unless he be prepared when challenged to repeat outside the Assembly the charges he makes in the Assembly.'

In the debate on this motion, I listed three specific allegations made by him. One allegation concerns the re-employment of Mr M. R. Marcus in the City Council. In col. 786 in Hansard, No. 9, Vol. 14, dated 19th December, 1960, Mr Ong Eng Guan said:

`I wonder if this is the way to get away from the P.S.C. in order to give a job to this particular officer who happens to be a brother-in-law of a Minister.'

The other two allegations concern the appointment of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan as Deputy Commissioner (Valuation). In col. 786 of the same volume of Hansard of the same number, he said:

`Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to put it to the Minister that many of these recommendations - which I have read myself - are meant for the purpose of fixing up certain things.'

He also said:

`In my opinion, there is nothing, as far as I know, to merit the transfer other than the fact that he is the brother-in-law of the Prime Minister.'

These were serious allegations as they implied that these officers had been favoured in the civil service because they happened to be related to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law.

During the debate on this motion, Mr Ong Eng Guan sought to by-pass my motion by challenging the ruling of the Speaker in admitting my motion of condemnation, and that this Assembly had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised therein. We, on the Government side, were in no doubt at all that the Assembly had powers to condemn the Member for Hong Lim in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the constitutional and statutory provisions extant in Singapore. The Opposition, however, sought to make political capital out of this matter by supporting Mr Ong Eng Guan. They confessed that they were confused on the admissibility of the motion. You, Mr Speaker, have since sought the opinion of the Fourth Clerk-at-the-Table in the House of Commons-a senior officer of that House primarily charged with the special duty, when asked, of assisting and advising legislatures in the Commonwealth on matters referred to him by the Clerks of such legislatures. You, Mr Speaker, read out the opinion of the Fourth Clerk-at-the-Table at the sitting of the Assembly last Wednesday. The Fourth Clerk-at-the-Table states that he would be fairly certainly of the opinion that the Assembly does have such powers. He adds [Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 13, 22nd February, 1961]:

`There seems to be nothing indeed to prevent any deliberative body (such as for example the Council of a Trade Union) doing this, provided that the motion does not contain a libel. In the case of the Legislative Assembly, the question of libel does not arise in view of Section 3 of the Powers and Privileges Ordinance, 1955. Furthermore the words "except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose" contained in Standing Order 46 (10) would appear expressly to envisage the moving of a motion condemning a Member for his personal conduct.'

In brief, the Fourth Clerk-at-the-table admits that this Assembly, on a substantive motion, has the power to condemn Mr Ong Eng Guan for dishonourable conduct.

On the 23rd December, 1960, Mr Ong Eng Guan said he wished to substantiate all the things he had said; he had nothing to apologise for. But, however, he pleaded for time to prepare his case. The Government had no intention to prevent him from speaking or to prevent him from seeking advice elsewhere. The debate was, therefore, accordingly adjourned to the 29th December, 1960, when the House would resolve itself into Committee to hear whatever evidence he could bring forward to substantiate those allegations.

On the 29th December, 1960, Members assembled in this Chamber - the Opposition perhaps agog with excitement, thinking that Mr Ong Eng Guan would provide them with the cudgels to hammer at the P.A.P. December 29th, however, turned out to be an anti-climax instead. On that day you, Mr Speaker, announced that Mr Ong Eng Guan had tendered his resignation from the Assembly a few minutes earlier. Although Mr Ong Eng Guan sought to run away from giving evidence in Committee of the Assembly, the Government obviously could not allow the matter to rest there. If we had permitted Mr Ong Eng Guan to leave his allegations unsubstantiated in the Assembly, the smears that he had uttered would have stuck and grave injustice would have been done to the persons against whom he had made these allegations. Accordingly I moved that the motion condemning Mr Ong Eng Guan be adjourned sine die, and announced that the Government would set up a Commission of Inquiry with a High Court Judge as Commissioner to investigate the truth of the allegations that have been made against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law.

A commission under Mr Justice Chua was appointed on the 31st December, 1960, with these terms of reference:

`(a) to inquire into the truth of the allegations on the re-appointment of Mr M. R. Marcus in the City Council made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly on the 10th December, 1960;

(b) to inquire into the truth of the allegations on the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly on the 12th December,1960;

(c) to inquire into the truth of the allegations on the appointment of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan as Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly on the 12th December, 1960.'

During the Inquiry an undertaking was given by the State Advocate-General on behalf of the Government that:

`No action under the Official Secrets Ordinance or under any other written law and no disciplinary action will be taken by the Government against any person who prior to this Inquiry disclosed any information on any matter relating to or in respect of this Inquiry and/or who will be giving evidence in this Inquiry'.

We gave this undertaking because we had nothing evil to hide and we were anxious that the truth be out. Members have by now studied the Report of the Commission of Inquiry and read the findings of the Commission. On Mr Ong Eng Guan's evidence in chief the Commissioner had this to say: (On page 6, paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Report of the Inquiry Commission, Paper Cmd. 7 of 1961).

`14. Mr Ong Eng Guan gave me the impression that he was in possession of some inside knowledge about the Government and I anticipated that startling disclosures would be made. I gathered this impression because the first two days' hearing and part of the third day's hearing were taken up by arguments by his counsel that Government should give an undertaking in no uncertain terms that witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission would not be liable to criminal proceedings or disciplinary actions and such an undertaking was given by the Government. Mr Ong Eng Guan, however, had nothing to disclose. He did not even have any facts on which he based his allegations.

15. Mr Ong Eng Guan, in the course of giving his evidence, made statements which were either half-truths or vague allegations with the intention of misleading the Commission. I find that he would tell an untruth when it suited him. All the three allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law and all the allegations which he made against the Prime Minister in the course of giving his evidence in this Commission are untrue, groundless and reckless. Mr Ong Eng Guan is a person not to be believed.'

On the re-employment of Mr M. R. Marcus into the City Council, Mr P. C. Lim, who was described by Mr Ong Eng Guan as his key witness, told the Commission that there was nothing improper about the re-employment of Mr M. R. Marcus, and the Commissioner found that Mr K. M. Byrne did not influence the Prime Minister to re-employ Mr M. R. Marcus and he had nothing to do with Mr M. R. Marcus' re-employment. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Prime Minister in re-employing Mr M. R. Marcus did so in accordance with certain principles which he laid down, when he took over control of the City Council from Mr Ong Eng Guan, for the re-employment of City Council Officers who had resigned during the period when Mr Ong Eng Guan was in charge of the City Council. The Prime Minister showed no bias towards Mr M. R. Marcus. The Commissioner found that there was nothing improper in re-employing Mr M. R. Marcus and the allegation of Mr Ong Eng Guan is untrue and groundless.

On the establishment of the post of Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) and the appointment of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan to this post the Commissioner said (in paras. 26 and 29 in page 9, and in paras. 39, 40, 41 and 42 in page 12 of the Report of the Inquiry Commission, Paper Cmd. 7 of 1961):

`26. Mr Ong Eng Guan's allegations are that these members of the Working Party were all under the instructions of the Prime Minister or the Minister for Finance, and that "it would be in the interest of civil servants for their own personal good and welfare to take directions without question from their Ministers", and that they set out to make recommendations for the creation of the post of Deputy Commissioner (Valuation), and that subsequently they drew up qualifications for that post to tailor the job for Mr Kwa Soon Chuan, a brother-in-law of the Prime Minister, so that the Prime Minister could place his brother-in-law in a key position.

Mr Ong Eng Guan said that he felt that the Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) had far wider statutory powers than the Deputy Commissioner of Lands. This was said to show to the Commission that the post of Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) was a key post. When Mr Ong Eng Guan was questioned he was unable to substantiate it. This statement of Mr Ong Eng Guan is absolute nonsense.'

`29. I find that no Minister interferred in any way with the work and deliberations of the Working Party and that when it came to a definite recommendation that recommendation was put to the Minister for Finance for his decision. I find that there is no truth in the allegation of Mr Ong Eng Guan that the post of Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) was created just for Mr Kwa Soon Chuan.'

`39. In the course of his evidence Mr Ong Eng Guan mentioned the names of Mr Lim Eng Bee, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr Lim Kim San, the Deputy Chairman, and Dr Phay Seng Whatt, a member of the Public Service Commission, and said that they were close friends of either the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Minister for Finance. The suggestion of Mr Ong Eng Guan, it seems to me, is that any of these Ministers could easily have influenced the Public Service Commission to select Mr Kwa Soon Chuan.'

`40. Mr Lim Eng Bee, Mr Lim Kim San, and Dr Phay Seng Whatt stated emphatically that in the course of their duties no Minister had tried to influence them and no Minister had spoken to any of them about Mr Kwa Soon Chuan. It is worthy of note that all these three gentlemen were members of the Public Service Commission when that Commission considered the promotions of timescale officers to Superscale Grade G and the Commission promoted Mr Un Hon Kun and not Mr Kwa Soon Chuan, who was then senior to Mr Un Hon Kun in the Land Office.'

`41. The Public Service Commission had given its reasons for selecting Mr Kwa Soon Chuan and in my opinion the Public Service Commission had made a proper selection.'

`42. I find that the posting of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan to act as Deputy Commissioner (Valuation) was done by the Establishment Branch not on the directions of the Prime Minister or any Minister but on its own initiative and on Establishment principles. I also find that no Minister had influenced the Public Service Commission in its selection of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan to be the Deputy Commissioner (Valuation). If the Prime Minister had wanted to help Mr Kwa Soon Chuan in his career in the Administrative Service he could easily have done so in February, 1960, by upholding the security objection against Mr Un Hon Kun thereby giving Mr Kwa Soon Chuan a chance of being selected for promotion or to continue to act in the post of Deputy Commissioner for Lands with the prospect of being ultimately confirmed in it.'

Finally, as a conclusion to his findings on the terms of reference, the Commissioner had this to say (para. 43 in page 12):

`43. I find that there is no truth at all in any of the three allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan. These allegations are groundless and recklessly made and there is no justification for making any of them.'

Mr Speaker, it was perhaps fortunate that Mr Ong Eng Guan left the Assembly to face an independent High Court Judge in the Commission of Inquiry, otherwise he might have gone out and said that he was intimidated by the Government majority and that judgment was passed on him by those whom he had fought. We now know that Mr Ong Eng Guan, in the Commissioner's own words, is "a person not to be believed", and who "would tell an untruth when it suited him".

This Report of the Inquiry Commission has proved conclusively that Mr Ong Eng Guan, when he was a Member of the Assembly, had grossly abused his privilege in this Assembly in making allegations which could not be substantiated.

Mr Speaker, let me cite a case where an abuse of Assembly privilege was made in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in India. A digest of what occurred in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly has been published in the Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments, Volume XXVII for 1958, pages 128 to130.

'India: Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly

Insinuations by a Member. - On 10th February Shri Genda Singh, M.L.A. [i.e., Member of the Legislative Assembly] gave notice of certain short notice questions.

After scrutiny by the office about their admissibility the orders of the Deputy Speaker were obtained on 17th February, 1958, and they were tabled for answer on 21st February, 1958. Shri Genda Singh's complaint was that his questions after admission had been sent to the Minister on 11th February and that the Minister intentionally delayed giving the reply of the said questions till the 21st February. When the questions were answered on 21st February, Shri Genda Singh said that the Minister defied the Rule and deliberately delayed answering of questions. He was told by the Speaker that there had been no delay on the part of the Minister, that the question of admissibility itself had been decided up to 17th February by the Deputy Speaker and that they were tabled for answers on 21st February, which was the day meant for the Minister. Shri Genda Singh, however, insisted that his questions were admitted on 11th and had been sent to the Minister concerned for answers on the 11th and that the Minister, who was in the habit of delaying answers, intentionally delayed giving answers till the 21st and that the answers given were evasive. He persisted in his allegation that the Revenue Minister intentionally delayed the replies to the questions and was guilty of violation of rules.

He added a request that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges, where many things would come to light (the implication being that there had been some tampering with the records). The Speaker thereupon referred the matter to the Privilege Committee for inquiry and report under Rule 67.

The Committee investigated the case and in their Report came to a unanimous decision that the questions had been sent to the Revenue Minister on 17th February and that there had been no manipulation whatsoever of any kind in the records of the Assembly Secretariat. The Committee was further of the opinion that if a member deliberately makes a wrong statement and tries to mislead the House, he should be held to be guilty of the breach of privilege of the House. The Committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that the conduct of Shri Genda Singh in the House, in persisting in his charge against the Revenue Minister of his deliberately delaying the reply to his questions and his obvious insinuations that there was some tampering of records in the Assembly Secretariat, was contumacious and disrespectful and that he was thus guilty of a breach of privilege of the House.'

Shri Genda Singh did not tender any apology for his contempt against the Revenue Minister, Shri Charan Singh, and was condemned by the Speaker.

Now what Shri Genda Singh said in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was pretty mild. What he had done was that he had uttered an innuendo when by saying that certain things would come to light he insinuated that there was a tampering of records and that this could be revealed by the Committee of Privileges. Mr Ong Eng Guan had uttered more than Mr Shri Genda Singh had uttered. He had made specific and direct allegations and these allegations have now been discovered by the Commission of Inquiry to be false.

Although Mr Ong Eng Guan is not today in this Chamber, his absence, however, does not prevent the House from condemning him for his dishonourable conduct in abusing his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.13 p.m.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister. On the 11th of January, 1961, the Deputy Prime Minister said this of Mr Ong Eng Guan - I refer to Hansard [unrevised transcript], col. 984:

`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.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, Mr Ong Eng Guan, will stand as a candidate in the by-election in Hong Lim. I think it is too early to make any pronouncements on him yet. Let the people of Hong Lim decide as to who tell lies and who should be condemned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I reject and disagree with the findings of this Commission of Inquiry. The most apt description of this Report is to use the same words spoken by the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. when he attacked the Buttrose Report on the Chew Swee Kee Inquiry published during the last general elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the Straits Times dated 28th May, 1959, page 7, column 8:

`The Buttrose Commission Report was criticised by leaders of the P.A.P. at a lunchtime rally at Fullerton Square.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Secretary-General of the Party, accused the Commissioner, Mr Justice Buttrose, of having exceeded the terms of reference. Mr Lee said, "It was not within his terms of reference to pass judgment on what I said in the Assembly. That is for the people of Singapore to decide." He said that during the Inquiry while he was cross-examining and giving evidence, Mr Justice Buttrose had been very careful to keep him (Mr Lee) within the terms of reference but he himself had strayed outside his terms of reference in several parts of the Report. Mr Lee said, "The final judgment on this matter, however, is not made by the Judge but by the next Assembly which shall debate the issue."'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the final judgment on this Report will be made by the people of Hong Lim.

Sir, may I recall a joint Press statement which my colleague, the Member for Punggol, and myself released on 30th December, 1960, wherein we said:

`Governments like Commissions of Inquiry.

We have not forgotten those appointed by the former Government.'

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have not forgotten the Commission of Inquiry into the Tanjong Pagar by-election and the Chew Swee Kee Commission of Inquiry. Neither have they forgotten the Commission of Inquiry into the City Council. Therefore, Sir, this Commission is no exception and neither will its findings - with which I disagree - change the fortunes of this Government in the Hong Lim by-election. As Commissions have failed miserably to save the S.P.A. Government, so this Commission of Inquiry will similarly fail in the Hong Lim by-election.

3.17 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first express my condolences to the hon. Members opposite in what must be another gloomy moment in their chequered political careers?

Sir, this is not the first time they have been embarrassed by the findings of an Inquiry Commission. Yet once again, the P.A.P. has appeared before an Inquiry Commission and vindicated its reputation for honesty and integrity. It is again the anti-P.A.P. elements who have been embarrassed by the findings of an Inquiry Commission.

Mr Ong Eng Guan, egged on by Right-wing politicians, sought to slander the P.A.P. Government with allegations of political corruption against two Ministers. Sir, the findings of the Chua Inquiry Commission have not only cleared the two Ministers of nepotism, but have instead substantiated the P.A.P.'s contention that Mr Ong Eng Guan - who we have been told by the Member for Cairnhill would be fighting the Opposition's battle in the Hong Lim by-election - is a man not to be believed and a man who would not hesitate to tell an untruth when it suited him. This, Sir, is the opinion of an experienced Judge one of whose jobs is to assess the credibility or otherwise of a witness.

The Member for Aljunied just now quoted the P.A.P.'s verdict on the Buttrose Commission's Report, but he did not dare, and I am quite sure he will not dare, do what the P.A.P. did. The P.A.P. made the statement about the Buttrose Commission at a public meeting and I invite the Member for Aljunied or Mr Ong Eng Guan to make the same statement about the Chua Inquiry Commission outside the Assembly at a public meeting.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the time has come when there should not be challenges of that nature shouted across the Chamber of this Assembly, because challenges of that nature may be construed as breaches of privilege of this Assembly.

Mr Rajah: Keep to the subject.

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, we will keep to the subject. Mr Ong Eng Guan, who is now going to fight the Hong Lim by-election for the Opposition, has been said by Justice Chua as a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth or who would not hesitate to tell an untruth when it suited him. This assessment of Mr Ong was based on his performance before the Inquiry Commission in the course of only ten sittings. Mr Ong, moreover, gave his evidence under oath. Not only did Mr Ong persist in the falsehoods he uttered in this Assembly, but with pathological consistency he embarked upon fresh falsehoods during the Inquiry itself.

Sir, since Mr Ong Eng Guan has been nominated by the S.P.A. to fight the Opposition's battle, it is only fair that the Opposition should point out in their next statement this evaluation of their pin-up boy made by Mr Justice Chua. I refer to page 6, paragraph 15 of the Report:

`Mr Ong Eng Guan, in the course of giving his evidence, made statements which were either half-truths or vague allegations with the intention of misleading the Commission. I find that he would tell an untruth when it suited him.'

The Right-wing politicians can be quite sure that Mr Ong Eng Guan would be fighting the Opposition's battle in a manner which, I am sure, would do justice to the Opposition's cause.

The Report of Mr Justice Chua furnishes proof beyond all doubt that Mr Ong Eng Guan acted dishonourably in this Assembly. Anyone who tells falsehoods, knowing them to be falsehoods, under cover of Assembly privilege to injure innocent people outside and inside this Assembly, is, in our opinion, guilty of dishonourable conduct. And dishonourable conduct on the part of an elected representative of the people must be severely dealt with.

Maybe, Sir, the Opposition has somewhat different views on this matter and, if so, we shall be glad to hear any original point of view. The issue before us is simple: "Did Mr Ong utter reckless falsehoods? If he did utter such falsehoods under cover of Assembly privilege, was he not being dishonourable? If he had uttered lies, then should he not be compelled to withdraw them and apologise to the House? Would not democracy be brought into contempt and ridicule if Assembly privilege were used as a cloak to utter falsehoods against innocent people?"

If the answers to all these questions are "yes" then this motion, far from being a blow against democracy, is intended to make more secure the foundations of democracy.

However, from the moment this censure motion was brought before this Assembly, the Right-wing and anti-P.A.P. politicians have sought to confuse the issue by claiming that it was a Government move to muzzle a Member of the Opposition. For example, Sir, on 18th December, 1960, the Singapore Congress - which I understand is a sort of politically conscious animal lovers' league - gave a strong plug for Mr Ong presumably in the belief that he was another underdog to be championed.

The Government's censure motion was described by the Singapore Congress as a fight between democracy and dictatorship and an attempt by "occupiers of Government Benches ... to muzzle a Member of the Opposition".

Then on 24th December, 1960, the coffin was opened and the Workers Party came out with a statement trying to depict Mr Ong Eng Guan as a champion of democracy. The Chairman of the Workers Party issued a statement couched in the following terms. I quote from the Straits Times of 24th December, 1960.

`The Chairman of the Workers Party, Mr David Marshall, today issued this statement: "The first meeting of the new executive committee of the Workers Party repeats that the Workers Party is not associated with Mr Ong Eng Guan and has never been associated with Mr Ong, but expresses its sympathy and respect for the heroic effort of Mr Ong in struggling against the attempt of the P.A.P. Government to silence him and nullify the choice of the people of Hong Lim."'.

Sir, Mr Marshall is no political chicken and he must have known that there was no attempt to muzzle Mr Ong. In fact, Sir, Mr Ong was given the opportunity under the motion to open his mouth wider. He could have spoken freely in order to substantiate his allegations. He was free to do this and that was what panicked him. As you recollect, Sir, he said in this House that he would substantiate his allegations, but when the time came, this man for whom Mr Marshall has such great respect got cold feet and did a bunk - and for a very good reason. He could speak freely only if he were allowed to utter malicious falsehoods behind the protective shield of Assembly privilege. This was the sort of heroic struggle which has apparently earned for Mr Ong the respect and greetings from the political has-beens of Singapore.

If Mr Ong was reduced to silence in the Assembly, it was only because he was put in the predicament of having to tell the truth or have his lies mercilessly exposed. Chronically incapable of the first and unable to face the second, he declined the opportunity of speaking freely in this Assembly by substantiating his allegations and decided to quit the Assembly. Sir, he is not, as Right-wing admirers of his are trying to insinuate, a refugee from P.A.P. intolerance. He was not expelled from this Assembly by the Government. He ran away of his own accord, simply because he had lied his way into a situation where resignation appeared to him the only safe course - or so he thought.

The essence of this motion is simple. If the allegations he made were false, and were proved to be false, then he could have remained in the Assembly by doing one of two things: either withdrawing his falsehoods and apologising to the House; or repeating those falsehoods outside the Assembly without the protection of Assembly privilege. But he did neither of these things. What Mr Ong's "heroic struggle", as political opportunists describe it, amounted to is this. He wanted not only the privilege of lying safely in this Assembly, but he also regarded it as an affront to his honour and to the cause of democracy in being asked to substantiate his allegations.

What all this attempt by Right-wing forces to depict Mr Ong as a heroic fighter for free speech boils down to is this: freedom of speech, so Mr Ong and his supporters believe, also includes the freedom to lie.

That, in essence, is the so-called heroic struggle of Mr Ong. That, in effect, would be the "Opposition's battle" that Mr Ong would be fighting in Hong Lim. Sir, the P.A.P.'s view of freedom of speech is this: freedom of speech means the freedom to tell the truth without fear. As against this, we have Mr Ong's and the S.P.A.'s stand that freedom of speech - they claim that we tried to restrict Mr Ong telling lies freely - therefore must include the freedom to lie recklessly and deliberately. If an elected representative is not allowed in the name of his voters to tell falsehoods, then, according to Mr Ong and his Right-wing supporters, the foundations of democracy would be undermined. Freedom to tell the truth as against freedom to tell lies - that, when all is said and done, is what this motion has been trying to decide on from the start.

The people of Hong Lim and the people of Singapore will have to choose between the advocates of these two sorts of freedom - freedom to speak the truth, and freedom to tell lies behind the protection of Assembly privilege. Sir, we do not think that the Right-wing politicians who now proclaim Mr Ong as their favourite in the Hong Lim by-election believed for one moment that Mr Ong's allegations were true. If they had really suspected that his allegations had some substance, then I am sure they would have been the first to agitate for a thorough investigation into the matter. If the allegations of nepotism and political corruption were true, or if they were believed to be true, then the P.A.P. would have been discredited in the eyes of the people. I am quite sure, Sir, that Members of the Opposition are fully aware of the damage proof of political corruption can do to a political party. Mr Chew Swee Kee's case is a very good example. In fact, what surprised us on this side of the House was the indifference with which the Opposition, some of whose Members tried to nourish the soul on the Government with discourses on moral rearmament, appeared to have taken Mr Ong's allegations of political corruption against two P.A.P. Ministers. Those were serious charges and, if true, merited severe punishment. But you will recollect, Sir, that there were no strident demands from the Opposition for an immediate investigation into the matter. There was no insistence that Mr Ong should be afforded every opportunity at the earliest possible moment to prove his allegations; nor did those outside this Assembly, who have nominated Mr Ong as the patron saint of democratic freedom, demand that Mr Ong's allegations be investigated and that Mr Ong be pressed to prove his case. However, when the Government did the Opposition's work by setting up, on its own accord, an Inquiry Commission after Mr Ong's resignation, even then we expected the Opposition wildly to acclaim this move and press for the speedy conclusion of the Inquiry. Instead of this, we found Mr Ong's friends making frenzied demands for an immediate by-election. Members of the Opposition joined in this chorus. All this was rather curious, to say the least. A Commission had been set up to inquire into serious allegations of nepotism by Mr Ong. Moral re-armers and moral disarmers - one would have thought would have waited to find out whether the charges of nepotism were true. In fact, it would have been to their political interest to wait for the findings of the Inquiry Commission before the by-election. If they believed that Mr Ong's allegations had some substance, then the chances of success for Mr Ong in Hong Lim would have enhanced a hundred-fold. It would then have been a straight fight between an honest man, like Mr Ong, and a corrupt government. And the S.P.A. knows very well that the people of Singapore are always ready to vote for an honest and truthful candidate. That would have been a worthy battle for Mr Ong to fight for the Opposition in Hong Lim. But if, on the other hand, Mr Ong was proved a liar, then the S.P.A. would not have been put in the predicament of getting a proved liar to fight its battle in Hong Lim.

That is precisely the predicament in which the S.P.A. now finds itself. Its battle in Hong Lim would be fought by a man found to be a common or a garden liar. In view of the findings of the Inquiry Commission, the S.P.A. and other admirers of Mr Ong in this Assembly will either have to join with us in condemning a man who had clearly indulged in dishonourable conduct, or stand loyally by him since he has had the S.P.A.'s blessings.

On the other hand, it may be that the supporters of Mr Ong knew that his allegations were false and were anxious that they should not be proved to be false. As long as Mr Ong was not exposed as a purveyor of deliberate falsehoods and was not prevented, in the name of free speech, from purveying new falsehoods in this Assembly, he would be of great use to the Right-wing enemies of the P.A.P. He could, far more effectively than the Right-wing, confuse the masses about the P.A.P. After all, Mr Ong was a former Minister of the Government and a Party member, and he had moreover hinted from time to time that he had secrets which would discredit the Party and the Government. This was another dishonourable tactic that Mr Ong adopted in this Assembly since his eviction from the Party. He made vague innuendoes that he had a lot of sinister things to tell about the P.A.P. He tried similar tactics with the Inquiry Commission.

When the hearings began, he produced not only an impressive list of 22 witnesses, but made no end of a fuss about assurances. He demanded a categorical assurance from the Government that none of his witnesses would be victimised. All this hitching of belts and flexing of muscles suggested to the Commission that Mr Ong was about to make startling disclosures. Sir, let me quote from the Inquiry Report - paragraph 14 in page 6. As a result of all this posing as a man who had deep knowledge of the inner workings of the Party and of the Government machinery, this is the effect he seems to have made on the Judge:

`Mr Ong Eng Guan gave me the impression that he was in possession of some inside knowledge about the Government and I anticipated that startling disclosures would be made. I gathered this impression because the first two day's hearing and part of the third day's hearing were taken up by arguments by his counsel that Government should give an undertaking in no uncertain terms that witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission would not be liable to criminal proceedings .' and the Government gave those assurance. But, concludes Mr Justice Chua:

`Mr Ong Eng Guan, however, had nothing to disclose. He did not even have any facts on which he based his allegations.' This was not because Mr Ong was prevented from speaking and telling all he knew. In fact, when questioned by the Commissioner, he assured him that he had been given every opportunity to say what he wanted to say that there had been no attempt to silence him in the Commission. Therefore, it was surprising to hear the Member for Aljunied claiming or indicating that Mr Ong, when the by-election takes place, is going to make new disclosures. But we know, Sir, Mr Ong has put on this act of a man who knows everything before - inside the Party and in the Assembly. He has often hinted vaguely that he had inside knowledge about the terrible goings-on in the P.A.P. However, every time he was pressed to elaborate on these vague smears, he chose to act as though the world was not yet ready to receive these awful disclosures of what I can only describe as "Maria Ong". However, he could not get away with this act before a Commission where he could be cross-examined on the spot.

There is no doubt that the Right-wing is capitalising on Mr Ong's claim that, as a former P.A.P. member, he had awful and terrible secrets to disclose. The Right-wing, who used him as a stool-pigeon, may have suspected that his act was phoney. However, if by these vague smears and lies he could create doubts and suspicions about the P.A.P., then he should not only be encouraged but protected from exposure as a chronic and pathological liar.

It must have been quite clear to many of his Right-wing patrons, very early on, that his allegations in the Assembly were false and that the motion of censure would expose him as a purveyor of falsehoods. And once he was exposed as a liar, then his lies could do no damage to the P.A.P., and, therefore, his usefulness to the Right-wing would have ceased to exist.

Hence, Right-wing political opportunists like Mr Marshall and Mrs Leon Soh and others tried to confuse the issue by claiming that the motion of censure was a blow at democracy. The many S.P.A. and Labour Front lawyers who advised Mr Ong must have known that his allegations could not stand close scrutiny. So the Right-wing rallied to his side by implying that the truth or otherwise of his allegations was a trivial matter, and that the censure motion was really an attempt by Government to silence Mr Ong.

In this Assembly too, Mr Ong, ably assisted by Members of the Opposition, had tried to confuse the issue by arguments about whether or not the Assembly had the power to suspend a Member for dishonourable conduct. At one point, Sir, I remember Mr Ong pleaded with you with all his heart to refer the matter to Sir Ivor Jennings. It is because he was in a fix, and, therefore, anything that would postpone the moment when he knew he would be called upon to substantiate his allegations, or apologise and withdraw his allegations, or repeat them outside the Assembly Chamber, was welcome to him. So when he found that he had no choice but to substantiate his allegations, he resigned. It is now clear that if he could have substantiated his allegations, then he would have lost no time in trying to prove his allegations. It was because he knew that he could not that he, on his own initiative, resigned from the Assembly. No doubt he thought that once he resigned, he would be spared the embarrassment of having to substantiate his allegations. He preferred the election platform at Hong Lim because he knew that on an election platform, he would not have his lies challenged then and there, face to face, but he could go on repeating lies privately in the quiet rooms of his voters unchallenged. That is why he now claims that this issue of whether Mr Ong Eng Guan is a liar or not should be decided at Hong Lim. Because a liar, Sir, likes a monologue. He does not like to be cross-examined. He likes to speak all by himself unchallenged. And that is why the Member for Aljunied is now pleading, "Let us have a second trial at Hong Lim", where Mr Ong can clearly and freely spread new lies.

Therefore, Sir, the appointment of an Inquiry Commission upset Mr Ong and his patrons. It meant that he would still have to substantiate his allegations, and this time before an impartial Judge. It appeared to Mr Ong and his friends that it was simply a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. So his friends once again rallied to his side. The Member for Aljunied was all for an immediate election. There was no need, he said, to wait for the findings of the Commission because that might take many, many months. The S.P.A. also joined in this demand for an immediate election. All Mr Ong's Right-wing supporters, strangely enough, were most anxious to have an election before the Inquiry Commission had decided whether Mr Ong's allegations of nepotism were true or not. I believe they must have had very good reasons for insisting that the by-election be held before the findings of the Inquiry Commission. They must have known that if he appeared before the Commission, he would be exposed as a petty liar.

Sir, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry is now before us - only some two months since Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned. Instead of the Assembly pronouncing verdict on Mr Ong Eng Guan, we have had this done for us by a third person - a Judge of the High Court. All Mr Ong's allegations have been proved to be reckless fabrications. He has been described by the Judge as a man not to be believed, as a man who would tell an untruth if it suited him. The Judge also found that Mr Ong made new false allegations before the Commission.

Sir, all these add up to one thing. Not only is Mr Ong capable of dishonourable conduct but he was guilty of dishonourable conduct in this Assembly when he recklessly made allegations against two Ministers, knowing that what he said were falsehoods. The fact that he dared not repeat these allegations outside the Assembly proved this. Sir, if all these are not reasonable proof of dishonourable conduct, then I would like to know the meaning of "dishonourable".

Sir, in his evidence before the Commission, Mr Ong described what he claimed was the pattern of the Prime Minister's way of working. This so-called pattern existed largely in Mr Ong's imagination, but it would not be amiss to draw the pattern of Mr Ong's dishonourable conduct in this Assembly. The three allegations he made against two P.A.P. Ministers were not an accidental indiscretion on the part of Mr Ong. Had it been so, the matter could have been amicably settled by Mr Ong withdrawing his allegations. But these three allegations were part of a systematic campaign of calumny through lies. He had used this strategy of lies and whispers in the Party since after the P.A.P. formed the Government. Sir, he suffered from the delusion that he was a budding Mao Tse-tung and Sun Yat Sen rolled into one. In fact, Sir, during the hearings of the Commission, he declared quite seriously that the aberrations in his personal life in some ways paralleled those of Sun Yat Sen and Mao Tse-tung. He was increasingly resentful of the fact that colleagues in the Party had not treated him as a budding Mao Tse-tung and acclaimed him the life and soul of the Party. He began, therefore, intriguing in order to build a personal faction inside the Party. And his favourite weapon was the secret smearing of his own colleagues. Fortunately, Sir, he was never a clever liar, and it was inevitable that he should be found out sooner or later. And when members of the Party, some of whom had at first been taken in by his lies, compared notes, they decided that his lies and intrigues should be checked. As you know, Sir, he was subsequently expelled from the Party; though even when he was expelled, he made a claim that the P.A.P. delegates who voted for his expulsion did so because the building in question was surrounded by armed secret police. This again is another lie to get out of the previous lies he had told. So, Sir, immediately after his expulsion, 22 Assemblymen signed and published a statement listing the lies he had told them. This, in fact, formed the core of the charges against him. And again, characteristically he announced in the papers that he would appear before the Party to answer these charges. But as in the case of the Assembly, on the day fixed for the hearing, he changed his mind and he did not appear, and as justification he cooked up a lie that had he appeared before his Party colleagues, he would have been subjected to the terror of a secret trial.

He knew that he could not answer the charges because they were true and his accusers were there ready to confront him with the evidence. That was why he took no action against the Assemblymen who had publicly caused to be printed in the newspapers the charge that he was a liar and listed the lies that he had told.

Therefore he had hoped to win a following by his so-called 16 resolutions. But even though he posed as an extreme Left-wing revolutionary, his support did not increase. He had, therefore, to do something spectacular to prop up his fading political prestige. Therefore, one assumes that he suddenly became aware that Assembly privilege could be used as a powerful weapon to support his fading prestige. So he began, first in a modest way, by telling small falsehoods against the Government and individuals in the Party. He claimed that the P.A.P. Government was run by Messrs. Blades, Thomson and Meadows. He alleged that the P.A.P. had forgotten the workers and had taken to oppressing the poor. The P.A.P., he said, had become a tool of the Right-wing. The P.A.P., he said, was no longer anti-colonial because it did not demand an independent Singapore. I notice, Sir, that since the resignation of Mr Ong, this slogan of an independent Singapore has now been taken up by the fireside revolutionary and the woolly anti-colonialist from the S.P.A. - Mr Lim Choon Mong. It is a historical fate, Sir, that all opportunists become informers for the Right-wing and subsequently their ignominious tool. It is only the Right-wing which is openly championing Mr Ong. His support has come exclusively from the Right-wing. Not a single progressive organisation has supported him. They have, instead, supported the P.A.P. simply because, for all Mr Ong's falsehoods, they know that the P.A.P. does not cheat the people.

So Mr Ong's falsehoods in this Assembly did not help him very much. After nearly six months of employing this campaign of lies, his only visible means of support were the Members for Aljunied and Punggol. That was, for him, a depressing thought. He had, therefore, to indulge in bolder and more spectacular lies, and what better lie than a charge of nepotism against two Ministers? Had he been allowed to get away with this, then we are quite certain that he would have been encouraged to spread new lies under the cloak of Assembly privilege. For he had nothing to lose. If his lies were not believed, he had nothing to lose. But by persisting in baseless smears and allegations, he hoped that some of his lies would be believed. The fact that his smears injured innocent people outside the Assembly was no concern to Mr Ong. These people could not hit back as he had the further protection of Assembly privilege if they dared to hit back. Such conduct is, in our view, dishonourable and in the long run will bring democracy into contempt and ridicule.

We do not know which way the Opposition is going to vote on this motion, and we do not care. However, they will agree on one thing. It was worthwhile waiting for the Inquiry Commission's Report before proceeding with the by-election in Hong Lim. The Report makes it clear that the "Opposition's battle" will be fought in Hong Lim by a man who cannot be trusted, by a man who would not hesitate to tell an untruth if it suited him. Beggars, Sir, it is said, cannot be choosers. The Right-wing may not sympathise with Mr Ong, but they have no choice but to unite in support of him. Mr Ong, for his part, may not have a high regard for his Right-wing patrons, but he cannot afford to spurn their patronage. It is simply a question of he and they either hanging together or hanging separately. Our guess and hope is that they will hang together in Hong Lim.

4.02 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join issue with the Minister for Culture. He has found it necessary at this particular sitting to make a pre-election speech. In spite of the culture that he is trying to introduce into Singapore, he has found it necessary to attack the Opposition for a shame that is nothing but the P.A.P.'s. It is not the S.P.A.'s. Who is Mr Ong Eng Guan? He was the beloved hero and comrade of the P.A.P., the man who, by his antics in the City Council as Mayor, had helped the P.A.P. to victory in the 1959 general elections. And this is the debt of gratitude that he got from the leaders of the P.A.P. whom he had helped to get into power.

Sir, they say we are Right-wing. What is Right-wing and what is Left-wing? The public is not interested as to who is Right-wing and who is Left-wing-

The Prime Minister: Just what is it?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: They are interested in their livelihood. They are interested in whether their rice-bowl can be filled or not. There is no need for us to describe ourselves as Left-wing and call a mass meeting on the Congo just to get the support of Left-wing adventurers and say, "We had 15,000 people attending the meeting," whereas at their annual conference less than a thousand P.A.P. members attended their meeting. And this they cannot hide.

The Prime Minister: You never had a conference. When did you hold yours?

Mr Speaker: Order. May I urge the Members on the Government Front Benches to contain themselves? I would also suggest to the Member for Cairnhill that he should contain himself and not get too excited.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am sorry, Sir, if I find I have to speak in such a tone, but one should have expected the Minister for Culture to be a little bit more cultured in his attack on the Opposition. Sir, he then says that we have been clamouring for a by-election, and that we do not want a Commission of Inquiry to be held. To us, we could pot care less whether Ong Eng Guan was right or wrong.

The Prime Minister: Oh?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He said so they do not care how we vote. So if we can say what he said, we could not care less what Ong Eng Guan said if what the Minister for Culture says is to be given credence and, shall we say,-

The Prime Minister: Talking about freedom!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - the truth that he could not care less how we vote, may we in the same way tell him, we do not worry what Ong Eng Guan said? We wanted an early by-election because it is the right of the people of Singapore to have a by-election, and any by-election should not be held at the whim and fancy of the Government which hopes to be returned.

Sir, the Minister for Culture said that suddenly because of Ong Eng Guan, we are clamouring for independence for Singapore. Sir, we took that line months and months ago, because we knew that merger with the Federation is not possible because of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. has damaged all prospects of a merger.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Nonsense!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And even the Prime Minister had to admit that there could be no merger during the life-time of this Government. Sir, -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister?

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

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

The Prime Minister: He must have some consideration-

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way. The Member is not giving way.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Only last week, Sir, on a point of explanation, I was not given an opportunity to explain. Sir, I would not like to cloud the issue today by speaking on matters that could rightly be classified as a pre-election speech. We are not going to contest this by-election for the simple reason-

The Prime Minister: That you know you will be defeated!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister is not setting a very good example, not only to his own backbenchers but to the whole Assembly. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: We are not interested in this by-election because even if we were to win one extra seat, it would have no effect on the majority which the Government has proudly boasted of - "With our majority, we can get anything through -"

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Rubbish!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, let us now come to the motion before the House. I can assure you, Sir, that in spite of whatever digs the Government benches may have at me, it is not going to make me lose my trend of thought.

Sir, in considering the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, we have also to take account of the evidence given in that Inquiry. And as we do not have a verbatim report of the evidence, we have, therefore, to reply on the lengthy reports that appeared in the local Press. Sir, the manner in which the evidence was given by the contending parties is a reflection of the kind of culture ingrained in the minds of P.A.P. leaders and ex-leaders, in spite of the fact that the Government boast of a Minister for Culture. They seemed to be in their element and gave ample evidence of the training they have had of the art of character assassination. This has done the country great harm-

Mr Byrne: Rubbish!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -inside as well as outside Singapore. So much so, Sir, that the two motions tabled last week by the Government on Algeria and the Congo were considered by the uncharitable as attempts by the Government to restore the waning prestige inside and outside Singapore. We do not take this view, Sir, because we do not think this view is correct and because we know that the Government is composed of honourable men. It has claimed to be a strong anti-colonial Government although it says that the present phase of the colonial struggle is a flexible one. It is so flexible that the Minister for Finance had to go abegging to the British for financial assistance.

Sir, the Opposition gives first consideration to the evidence of the Prime Minister, and being a Prime Minister, his evidence is therefore the more important and should be accepted as the truth and nothing but the truth, the more so because that evidence was given under oath.

Sir, in the Straits Times of the 31st of January at page 7, the Prime Minister was reported to have said he "had won the largest number of votes and the largest majority in the 1955 election." I felt, Sir, that this claim could not be totally and materially correct, and I therefore looked up the records. Figures disclosed, Sir, that the Prime Minister did not score the highest majority. The largest majority was scored by the successful candidate for Havelock, who is now the Member for Cairnhill-

Mr Byrne: Ah, what a memory! If you will allow me-

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker,. Sir, I started life-

The Prime Minister: You like Mao Tse-tung too?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -serving the public since 1948. But in 1955 when the Rendel Constitution was introduced. I did not have to go to the P.A.P. for support to fight the election in Havelock. But the Prime Minister had to call on me, the then Member for Keppel, to tell his constituents in Tanjong Pagar, who had been constituents of the division of Keppel, to vote for him.

The Prime Minister: Come, come!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I have never asked for help.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You have never been found out yet!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And I have been serving in this Assembly time and time again. I started as Member for Keppel, then Member for Havelock, then Member for Cairnhill, and I leave the next division to the P.A.P. Anywhere-any time. [Laughter] It is not a challenge, Sir.

Mr Byrne: It is a joke!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Even Tanjong Pagar-

The Prime Minister: Why not Hong Lim?

Mr Speaker: Order. Is all this relevant to the motion? I cannot see how the remarks are relevant to the motion. But may I again appeal to the Members of the Government Front Bench to set an example and the tone in this debate? Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am sorry, Sir, I found it necessary to be a bit irrelevant in answer to remarks made by the Front Benchers. Sir, I said the Prime Minister did not score the highest majority. It was scored by somebody else. And yet that statement was made in the Commission of Inquiry under oath. The P.A.P., Sir, in the words of the Minister for Culture, "do not cheat the people."

Sir, again in the Straits Times of the 31st of January, on page 7, at the top of col. 3:

`Mr Ong then referred to a pamphlet which said: "Vote for P.A.P.'s Lee Kuan Yew, fearless champion of the people." He asked Mr Lee if he still considered himself a champion of the people or whether he was a fearless champion of the British.

He said that people like Lim Chin Siong, Goh Chew Chua and Devan Nair never called themselves "champions of the people.' Only Mr Lee did.

Mr Lee replied that those were the tricks of an election.'

The tricks of an election indeed! The electorate of Singapore no doubt will have taken note of the words uttered by the Prime Minister in the Commission of Inquiry given under oath. And yet the P.A.P., in the words of the Minister for Culture, "do not cheat the people".

Sir, again the Straits Times of 31st of January, page 7, col. 2 this time:

`Mr Ong recalled that when Mr Lee alleged that he had a multiplicity of wives on December 12, 1960 he gave the impression that he had five, 20, 100 wives and then he reduced the number to two.

Mr Lee said he was not in court to make wild allegations but to produce the documents which would prove all Mr Ong's falsehoods.'

The Prime Minister said he was not in Court to make wild allegations. In other words, the allegation of a multiplicity of wives is a wild allegation and therefore the Prime Minister should not have made that allegation in this Assembly.

The Prime Minister: I was prepared to repeat it outside.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: A multiplicity of wives-

Mr Byrne: Is that not true?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -which, Sir,-

Mr Byrne: Is that not correct?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have asked the Member for Cairnhill how all these remarks are really relevant to the motion. It seems to me now that he is debating the conduct of the Prime Minister. If he wishes to do so, of course, he must file a motion. He must give notice of a motion on the conduct of the Prime Minister.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I did not use the words "wild allegations" without having been given those words myself. The Prime Minister said in evidence that any allegation of a multiplicity of wives which cannot be substantiated is therefore a wild allegation. And that sort of allegation should not be made, particularly by the Prime Minister in this Assembly which is charged today to condemn the ex-Member for Hong Lim, the ex-Mayor of the City Council, the ex-Minister for National Development, and the ex-hero and comrade of the P.A.P. for making wild allegations in this Assembly.

Sir, again on page 5 of the same paper, the Prime Minister is reported to have said on this question of allegations:

`Mr Lee said that one of the first things he had learned in life was never to make an allegation which might later have to be substantiated because this would only lead to trouble.'

And yet he made that allegation of multiplicity of wives in this Assembly. Perhaps, Sir, the allegation was made in the heat of the moment, or perhaps the Prime Minister has still some more things to learn in life.

The Prime Minister: I have also some more information.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it is reported too again on page 7, column 2 of this paper - this is very important:

`Mr Ong said that when he was Mr Lee's friend everything was all right.

Mr Lee interposed that Mr Ong had never been his friend but only his political colleague. As such, every wrong that Mr Ong did he concealed from the public because he had to protect the unity and solidarity of the party.

He said he knew Mr Ong was trying to make Mr P. C. Marcus a scapegoat but "we protected you."

Declaring that "we never bite our own friends," Mr Lee said it was only after Mr Ong turned renegade that he decided to fight him.'

Because Mr Ong was a colleague at that time, every wrong that he did, the Prime Minister concealed from the public. The public will remember that during the term of office of the previous Government, a Commission of Inquiry was appointed to investigate into the wrongful acts of the then Mayor of the City Council. The Prime Minister defended Mr Ong because he was then a colleague and covered up for him. The then Mayor was charged for doing grievous wrong in the City Council. The Prime Minister said that the then Mayor, then his colleague and the hero of the P.A.P., was a great man and had done many good things in the City Council. And now, Sir, because Mr Ong turned renegade, the Prime Minister decided to fight him and to expose him. It is now admitted by the Prime Minister that the then Mayor, now no longer his beloved colleague, had done grievous wrong in the City Council. This, Sir, must be another election "trick" that won the day for the P.A.P. during the last general elections. Mr Ong at that time was acclaimed by the P.A.P. as a great leader, a great hero, and that under a P.A.P. Government the people would have a wonderful government that would look after the poor. And because Mr Ong Eng Guan had been made use of as a great hero during the general elections in 1959, it was therefore justified for Mr Ong to claim in the Commission that he was helping Mr Lee to become the Prime Minister.

Sir, when the previous Government appointed the Commission of Inquiry which I referred to earlier in my speech, the Prime Minister accused the previous Government, saying that this act was a political move against the P.A.P., in view of the forthcoming elections. What about the present Commission of Inquiry into Mr Ong Eng Guan? Did the P.A.P. Government not say and confirm it today that the by-election would only be held after the Report of the Commission of Inquiry was debated in this Assembly? Sir, we do not hold the view - although it is held by many people and particularly by the electorate of Hong Lim - that this is a political move against Mr Ong Eng Guan. We do not hold this view, Sir, because inasmuch as the P.A.P. Government want to claim that the Commission of Inquiry appointed by them has nothing to do with attacking the political integrity of an opponent who may appear on the scene in the Hong Lim by-election, the previous Government claimed the same thing - it was not a political move aimed at the P.A.P.; it was just a Commission of Inquiry appointed to expose the wrongful acts of the then Mayor of the City Council. What the previous Government did was wrong, so said the P.A.P., but what the P.A.P. Government do now, although it may be the same as what the previous Government did then, is right because it is a good, clean, honest Government!

Sir, this leads me to quote another instance of this kind of double talk. In 1959 before the general elections, there was a fire at Tiong Bahru. The previous Government showed sympathy for the fire victims and gave them temporary Trust accommodation free of rent. But what did the P.A.P. say then? "The Government is making political capital out of these fire victims. They should not have given accommodation free of rent to the fire victims." Two days ago, a fire took place at Upper Chin Chew Street. And what is the P.A.P. Government going to do? They are going to give accommodation free of rent to the fire victims too. What the previous Government did was wrong, so said the P.A.P., but what the P.A.P. Government do now, although it may be the same as what the previous Government did then, is correct and grand because the P.A.P. Government is a good, honest, clean Government!

Sir, this paper of 31st January seems to disclose a lot of facts. This is important too because it is levelled at me. The last two lines in column 7 and the first two lines in column 8 of page 5 read:

`Mr Lee then said Mr Ong had a chat with Tun Lim Yew Hock, who alerted him and then Mr Ong did not turn up.'

Sir, this is an untruth although it has been said by the Prime Minister under oath. I did not alert Mr Ong Eng Guan. Why should I? On that particular day, I was looking forward to seeing the Government take an unfair advantage, with their overwhelming majority, over their ex-beloved hero and colleague, the Member for Hong Lim at that time, by tabling a surprise motion the terms of which have caused so much talk in Singapore and elsewhere. What happened was this, Sir, and this is the truth and nothing but the truth. On that particular day, my colleague the Member for Farrer Park and I saw the Prime Minister in the Library at his request. He told us in confidence - and I would not have mentioned it here if my name had not been brought up in the Commission of Inquiry - that the Government proposed to introduce a surprise motion against Mr Ong Eng Guan. We were still with him when the State Advocate-General came in with a draft and we had a look at it. We were asked by the Prime Minister about our stand and were told that he had to get a clearance from you for dispensing of notice. I consulted my colleagues and I then conveyed our answer to the Deputy Prime Minister in the C.P.A. Room because the Prime Minister then was busy.

Mr Ong Eng Guan witnessed considerable activity on the part of P.A.P. Assemblymen. He saw them going into the Committee room, closeted, talking and whispering, and you yourself were seen to leave your Chair to go to your room obviously for consultation. Mr Ong was in the Opposition Room. He sent a chit to me while I was sitting here, saying, "Tun Lim, would you please come out and see me?" I went and saw him in the Opposition Room. He told me, first of all, that he sensed that something was in the air because of what he had seen and what had been reported to him, and he asked me whether I knew anything. As I received the information in confidence, I therefore could not say yes. I said, no, I had no knowledge. The Minister for Education felt that I should not have kept that confidence. I said, no, I had no knowledge. "Yes, but you know Mr Speaker went twice into his room." I said, "If you are so concerned, go and see the Speaker." So he went to see you, Mr Speaker, and I do not know what took place, but he came out and later on he told me, "I say, this P.A.P. terrible, man. They want to move a surprise motion against me. But Mr Speaker, anyway, gentleman; he won't allow it." But, Sir, when Mr Ong Eng Guan had that talk with me, I was really embarrassed and then I had to go running to the Deputy Prime Minister and say, "I say, Dr Toh, this surprise motion of yours may be no surprise. I have been grilled by Mr Ong Eng Guan. Although I have told him nothing, he is going to see Mr Speaker." So if there was anybody who was alerted, may I suggest that it was the P.A.P. which was alerted by me to the fact that the surprise motion was no longer a surprise motion, because Mr Ong Eng Guan already knew that something was coming up.

Sir, the Opposition holds no brief for Mr Ong Eng Guan - and I repeat it here - we hold no brief for Mr Ong Eng Guan. In fact, we consider he has done a great disservice to the country by discharging his duties as Mayor in the City Council in such a manner as to make the people feel that the P.A.P. was a very good Party - which it is not - and thereby piloting the P.A.P. into power in the 1959 general elections. How can we have sympathy or love for a man who we feel has done a disservice to the country? He happened to be a Member of the Opposition.

Mr Byrne: You want him to fight the battle for the Opposition!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Therefore, Sir,-

Mr Byrne: But you say-

Mr Speaker: Order. Please continue, Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you, Sir. So I did not alert Mr Ong Eng Guan, and I hope that statements said here in all sincerity and in all truth would be accepted. I would not want to alert him even if I were asked to alert him, or even if I were asked by the Prime Minister to convey it to him. I would not have done it. We were going to enjoy the spectacle of the P.A.P. Government doing something that could be described later on - outside and inside this Assembly - as a most undemocratic act. We did not have to alert Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Sir, in this motion we are asked to take note of the Report of the Inquiry Commission. The Opposition takes note that the Inquiry Commission has been the forum where character assassination was the order of the day. The Opposition further takes note that because of this character assassination (the dramatis personae being the Prime Minister versus the ex-Mayor of the City council, the ex-Minister for National Development, the ex-hero and ex-colleague of the P.A.P., the ex-Member for Hong Lim) it has done no good to anybody, not even to the country. May I suggest to the P.A.P. that the sooner all this is pushed aside, the better it will be for Singapore, and the more time and energy Government will have to discharge their primary duty of looking after the welfare of the people of Singapore?

Sir, I now come to the second part of the motion. We are asked to condemn Mr Ong Eng Guan "for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people". But where is Mr Ong Eng Guan for us to condemn? He is not here. He has resigned. And because he has resigned, we feel that he has paid sufficient atonement for whatever wrongs he might have done to the dignity of this House. Sir, we do not countenance such dishonourable conduct and, if I remember rightly, we have had occasion to hear speeches made in this House by certain Members on the Government side bordering on such conduct. I know now we all do not want any more of it, and we are glad. As stated by you, Sir, in your speech from the Chair at the last sitting, we feel that a Sessional Committee of Privileges should be appointed immediately, a Committee which can be entrusted with the duty of maintaining the dignity of this House and disciplining any Member from either side of the House for any dishonourable conduct.

Sir, since the Minister for Culture has found it necessary to make a pre-election speech, this motion has therefore taken on a political significance, particularly as the by-election in Hong Lim will take place soon. We are not interested in this by-election. We know, and the public know, that it is going to be a grudge fight between two groups in the P.A.P. And because it is a grudge fight, and because we have no sympathy for the contending parties, we say, "May the less - worse man win".

Sir, in the light of what I have spoken and in answer to the query raised by the Minister for Culture, the Opposition will abstain on this motion. The Opposition and the public take note that the Minister for Culture has said on behalf of the P.A.P. Government that they could not care less how we vote.

4.35 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the subject for discussion by us today, I am surprised that even before all Members of the Opposition have risen to speak, the Minister for Culture has charged that he does not care less which way we vote. I would like to stress that I do not care a damn what happens to the P.A.P. If the P.A.P. is not interested in our stand, there will come a time when the P.A.P. will take heed of U.M.N.O.'s vote, particularly the Singapore U.M.N.O.

Mr Speaker, really I do not wish to speak or participate in this debate. It is not because of the fasting month or because I am weak. It was not my intention to speak originally because I know that this is a fight between two factions, each one wanting more power, with the result that one side will become a victim. So whichever side becomes a victim, we are not interested.

Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise once again, and especially to the Minister for Culture, that they cannot attempt to threaten us, particularly U.M.N.O. as the Opposition. If we are intimidated, there will come a time when our services will be required. For instance, what had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development done at the time when there was tension which nearly precipitated a clash between the Chinese and the Malays? He invited U.M.N.O. to hold a meeting. A meeting was held and it finally resolved to put an end to the tension. We did not like to take part in that matter, but bearing in mind that we wished to co-operate with the Government, we decided to make an appeal through the radio. And on this matter before us today, even before we have declared our stand, we have already been accused by the Government.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to comment on Mr Ong Eng Guan. But I would like to say that Mr Ong Eng Guan is an ex-member of the P.A.P. who had been instrumental in creating disunity in Singapore U.M.N.O. The reason why I say this is that when he was the Mayor there were many U.M.N.O. members who owed a debt of gratitude to Mr Ong Eng Guan by becoming teachers in the Malay classes conducted in the City Council. By this act of Mr Ong Eng Guan - helping U.M.N.O. members - he directly became responsible for the break-up of U.M.N.O. members.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, because I am an ex-member of U.M.N.O., I should like to remind the Member that I resigned from U.M.N.O. not because I owed any debt to-

Mr Speaker: That, of course, is not a point of order. Inche Mohd. Ali.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, that was the state of affairs existing when Mr Ong Eng Guan was Mayor of the City Council. Mr Speaker, this is still fresh in my memory - I was not a Member of this Assembly in the past Government - when we demanded the Government to release the Nadra detainees, we were intimidated, not me but the Member for-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has been irrelevant, but I have allowed him to carry on because of the allegations made by the Minister for Culture. But I think I must now pull him back to the motion. The motion is merely a motion to condemn Mr Ong Eng Guan in the light of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the whole, although I consider Mr Ong Eng Guan did a lot of good things in the City Council, it is my view now that he has clearly demonstrated that he could fight and join the ranks of the Opposition and expose to the people of Singapore the goings-on, whether in the Party or in the government of the day. Therefore, Mr Speaker, U.M.N.O. Members in this Assembly hold the same view as expressed by the Member for Cairnhill, that is, we will not make pre-election speeches as have been made in this Assembly just now, and we will not participate nor join hands with Mr Ong Eng Guan when he contests the by-election in Hong Lim. However, we would like to see Mr Ong Eng Guan returned as an Opposition Member.

4.45 p.m.

The Acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Ong Chang Sam): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition have expressed their views. It is very clear that at today's sitting, we can see that they have united together as one team today. Before the tabling of this Report the hon. Member for Cairnhill fully supported Mr Ong Eng Guan. But after the Report has been tabled, he has found that all the facts contained in the Report are true, and what the former Member for Hong Lim had said was all false. That is why in his speech he has expressed the view that he will abstain from voting on our motion. This clearly shows that when confronted with a fight, the Opposition still want to support the former Member for Hong Lim. In his speech the Member for Cairnhill did not mention the facts contained in the Report. He dared not deny the facts in the Report. He cannot say that the findings of the Report were not true. Therefore, we can clearly point out that the tabling of this Report will be a very good thing for the people of Singapore and for all the people concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fortunate that in this Assembly today, we can discuss the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly on the 10th and 12th December, 1960.

First, this House must express its thanks to Mr Justice Chua for his work, because he has fulfilled his task in a very short time. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time in the history of the parliamentary system that we have taken steps to deal with a Member of this Assembly for uttering certain unfounded allegations. I hope this will be the last time that this sort of thing will happen. Although we do not have a very long history in parliamentary democracy, the facts have clearly shown to us that we can fully utilise the one man one vote system. There will be no danger in this system, and we can fully utilise it to develop the spirit of democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, this House has become a dirty pool, because the speeches of the ex-Member for Hong Lim had blinded the people of Singapore, so that they have expressed doubts on the sincerity of the Government. In an editorial in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 27th February, 1961, regarding the political lesson of the Ong Eng Guan incident, in the last part of paragraph 4, it is stated thus:

`Frankly speaking, these political storms' have shaken the faith of the people of Singapore in the parliamentary system and the future of democratic self-government. If this House does not resort to effective measures, then our democratic system will become a laughing stock.'

The editorial continues:

`Mr Justice Chua has been appointed as Commissioner of the Inquiry. The purpose of his appointment is to clarify the confused situation. His report which has been tabled can be said to have fulfilled this task.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the suction pump and filter have now cleansed the whole pool of dirty water, so that the stones and gravel at the bottom have come out clearly, and the people of Hong Lim now clearly see the character of the ex-Member for Hong Lim. If necessary we will disclose more facts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Opposition Members have been shouting about freedom of speech and freedom of the Press. They have made speeches to that effect. They think that the censuring of the Member for using the privilege of the Assembly as a cloak for spreading false rumours is undemocratic. And they are against this. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House, when moving his motion, clearly said that this motion was not directed specifically against an individual, but it was related to the whole Assembly. But you, Mr Speaker, at the sitting on the 19th of December, 1960, before the motion was proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, you had stressed that the motion was not directed against an individual, but it concerned the Assembly as a whole, because the protection of freedom of speech of Assemblymen does not mean that the Assembly will allow them to abuse this privilege with impunity. The President of Indonesia, Dr Soekarno, has said that freedom of speech and legal sanction are not separable. They are complementary to each other, like body and soul. Like all other kinds of freedom, freedom of speech is not absolute. There is no freedom of unprincipled speech. This kind of unprincipled speech will interfere with the harmonious development of freedom in other respects. It will tend to hamper the harmonious development of freedom, and this will sow the seed of discontent and the seed of destruction for freedom. I think hon. Members here will all agree to this saying of President Soekarno.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the ex-Member for Hong Lim, Mr Ong Eng Guan, utilised the privilege of this House as a cloak to cover up his falsehoods. He cunningly utilised all kinds of falsehoods, shouting exciting slogans and making unreasonable allegations for his own purposes. In his dying struggle he would catch at any straw. But paper tigers and brass rings will not endure the true test. In the end, the true nature of such people will be disclosed and they will be despised by the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Ong Eng Guan put up a Left-wing flag, showing that he was on the Left. He walked up and down the street selling his political ballyhoo, shouting all day long-shouting slogans to the effect that he was for the benefit of the poor people and down with the yellow culture and anti-colonialism. He was crying as though heaven and the sky would fall down. And he tried to show that he alone was the only person who was capable of leading the people to see the sun and sky again. But he has forgotten that time is the best test, the best witness. A paper tiger, after the rain and the wind, after the trial of temperature, will in the end disclose its true nature and true appearance, and it will show that it is only a shattered framework, and nothing else. Brass rings cannot endure the heat of the furnace. They will melt. Mr Ong's anti-yellow culture became his stumbling-block. He claimed himself to be an anti-colonialist. But this has in the end turned out to show that he is a reactionary and a Right-wing adventurer. Now he knows full well that the workers, hawkers and farmers have all come to know that he has been lying in the past. These people do not support him. He knows this fact clearly. Therefore, his only lifebuoy is the ex-Chief Minister, the hon. Member for Cairnhill, and the hon. Member for Joo Chiat, Mr David Marshall, and Mrs Leon-Soh and so on.

But this type of internal contradiction of Mr Ong Eng Guan is not like what Mr Mao Tse-tung has written in his book regarding the internal contradiction of the people. On the one hand, he taps on the shoulders of the hawkers and the workers, but on the other hand, he shakes hands with the Right-wing group - coming to terms with them. This action will be disclosed by the passage of time. Mr Speaker, Sir, those Right-wing reactionaries have all spoken in support of Mr Ong Eng Guan. They have protested strongly. They have thought that with this they can unite together to beat the P.A.P. so that they can have a political come-back. Mr Ong Eng Guan has also given his full support and co-operation to this group.

He has been silent on their speeches and statements. He thinks that the unity and strength of the Right-wing group can beat the Left-wing P.A.P. But unfortunately, Mr Ong Eng Guan has forgotten the fact that the eyes of the people are bright and discerning. His coming to terms with the Right-wing group cannot avoid the future events that are going to happen to him. It is just like paper which cannot wrap up fire.

Now that Mr Justice Chua's Report has been tabled in this House, the facts are put clearly before the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me read out paragraph 43 of this Report. It says:

`I find that there is no truth at all in any of the three allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan. These allegations are groundless and recklessly made and there is no justification for making any of them.'

What is black has now been clearly shown.

5.03 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. KANDASAMY) in the Chair]

The Acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Ong Chang Sam): Will the hon. Member for Cairnhill still speak for Mr Ong Eng Guan? Will the hon. Member for Joo Chiat still act as an adviser to Mr Ong Eng Guan? We will ask them this. Does Mr David Marshall still want to become a supporter of Mr Ong Eng Guan? Does Mrs Leon-Soh still want to protest for Mr Ong Eng Guan? We will be glad if they can come forward and have a debate with us at Mr Ong Eng Guan's mass meeting; or do they want to meet us in Hong Lim? We welcome and will gladly accept that.

To wind up my speech, let me quote paragraph 15 of this Report:

`Mr Ong Eng Guan, in the course of giving his evidence, made statements which were either half-truths or vague allegations with the intention of misleading the Commission. I find that he would tell an untruth when it suited him. All the three allegations made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in the Legislative Assembly against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law and all the allegations which he made against the Prime Minister in the course of giving his evidence in this Commission are untrue, groundless and reckless. Mr Ong Eng Guan is a person not to be believed.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us put this passage clearly over to the people of Hong Lim and let them know who will be one of the contestants in the Hong Lim by-election; what kind of a man he is. Let us all hope that this kind of thing will not happen in this House in future.

5.05 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government side has described Mr Ong Eng Guan as a person who is on terms with the Right-wing party, but they have forgotten that last year when we were debating the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, that Member was described as an "extreme opportunist". The purpose is to confuse the Hong Lim electorate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just now when our Deputy Prime Minister moved the motion to censure the ex-Member for Hong Lim, he acquired the support of the Member for Cairnhill. Thus, we can see very clearly who is on terms with the Right-wing party. It is clear that the Government Party is doing this in order to have harmonious action against a Member elected by the people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in my view, the electorate of Hong Lim should not be censured. On the 10th and 12th of December last year, concerning the M. R. Marcus and Kwa Soon Chuan affairs, the ex-Member for Hong Lim used his privilege as a Member for Hong Lim and as a Member of the Opposition to give his suggestions, and the Government had the right to analyse the facts clearly. The Government should not consider his words as allegations so as to use the whole Assembly to condemn him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry, because of the ex-Member for Hong Lim, is just wasting time and public money. He repeatedly said that he had not attempted to make allegations. Therefore, is there any need for an investigation? The Government is using the Commission of Inquiry to delay the by-election in Hong Lim, so as to express their own points of view.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to paragraph 17 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. The ex-Administrator of the City Council, P. C. Lim, gave evidence at the Inquiry. Mr Lim, appearing before the Commissioner, pointed out that J. L. Byrne said the following, that he was under instructions to see Marcus. This witness was an independent witness. He is now in the Water Department. Unfortunately, his points of view were not accepted by the Commission. In my view, it was impossible for J. L. Byrne to have used those words. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether J. L. Byrne's speech was soft or not. It was not clear. Or was there something wrong? From this we can see that an Inquiry Commission, in fact, will not come to any finding which will be detrimental to the Government in respect of the coming Hong Lim by-election.

5.13 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, the S.P.A. has not hesitated to exploit the Ong Eng Guan issue. They have paid tribute to Mr Ong Eng Guan by even imitating his method of big smears, innuendoes and half-truths. For example, in a Press statement issued by the Secretary-General of the S.P.A., Mr Lim Choon Mong, on 7th February, he said that "even the absence of the Party's organising secretary from Singapore at this crucial moment is significant."

What is significant? Is it suggested by Mr Lim Choon Mong that I was away from Singapore because of some disagreement over the motion on Mr Ong Eng Guan? Obviously, the statement by the S.P.A. was intended to imply some disagreement. Let me assure the House that I am completely with the Government on this motion condemning Mr Ong Eng Guan for his dishonourable conduct. Mr Lim is obviously trying to propagate the false rumours spread by Mr Ong Eng Guan that there are two factions in the Party - one pro-Ong Eng Guan and the other anti-Ong Eng Guan. Let me say that there are no two such factions in the Party. There is only one faction - the pro-P.A.P. faction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the essence of democracy is rule by consent through the Legislative Assembly elected by the people. The Assembly is the highest legislative body of the State where the elected representatives of the people sit and deliberate on issues vital to the people's interest. It follows, therefore, that the Assembly should be given the highest respect if it is to be entrusted with the fate of the 1� million population. How can the people have confidence in democracy if the Legislative Assembly is reduced to a status where, instead of debating issues of State, malicious and unfounded falsehoods are uttered to injure unjustly innocent persons both within and without the Assembly? If these flagrant abuses of privileges are not checked and freedom to spread lies prevented, then the elected Assembly would be brought into contempt and ridicule.

Mr Deputy Speaker, no one who has an interest to see that the democratic system of government should work smoothly and effectively can oppose the motion. As other Members have put it, the issue before the House is whether the privileges of the Assembly should be abused in spreading unfounded falsehoods and whether the freedom of speech in the Assembly includes the freedom to tell lies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no hesitation in giving my unqualified support to the Deputy Prime Minister's motion in condemning Mr Ong Eng Guan for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly.

5.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Siew Choh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also rise to support the motion.

Most of the ground has already been covered by speeches so far, but this is such an important matter that it bears repetition. Now that the Inquiry Commission's Report on the allegations of Mr Ong Eng Guan has been published, it is crystal clear that Mr Ong Eng Guan, whilst he was the Member for Hong Lim, had repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent people. At this point, Sir, may I answer, first of all, the Member for Punggol who happens to be out? He said that the Inquiry was a waste of time and public money. I think all of us agree on that. To a certain extent, it is true, but let us also ask, who was the real cause for all this? No other person than Ong Eng Guan himself. And then the hon. Member also remarked that Ong Eng Guan was accused of being a Left-wing adventurer and now a Right-winger. I think the position has not been made very clear to him. The real thing is that Ong Eng Guan merely posed as a Left-winger but, at the present moment, he is being made use of by the Right-wing. If you want to classify Ong Eng Guan, then he is nowhere - neither here nor there. He is only an opportunist - nothing more than that. The Report anyway has categorically and conclusively stated that there is no substance in the allegations of Mr Ong Eng Guan. Further, the Report states that all the allegations made against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law are untrue, groundless and reckless. Mr Ong Eng Guan is a person not to be believed. Even in the course of giving his evidence, Mr Ong Eng Guan made statements which were either half-truths or vague allegations with the intention of misleading the Commission. The Commission found that Mr Ong Eng Guan would tell an untruth when it suited him.

Sir, these are facts which have been known to us for a long, long time and now they are borne out by the Report which bears the stamp of authority of an independent High Court Judge. It only remains for us, who are Members of this House, to protect and uphold the dignity and prestige of the Assembly. It is up to us, who are Members of this august Assembly, to see to it that no one abuses the privilege of the House as a cloak to injure unjustly innocent people. The allegations of Ong Eng Guan were especially sinister in that he made those allegations in the form of half-truths. He gave the impression that he had the inside dope but was prevented from spilling the beans because of the Official Secrets Ordinance. However, an undertaking in the widest terms possible was given by Government that no action whatsoever would be taken against anyone who had revealed information before or would reveal information during the Inquiry. Mr Ong Eng Guan had been given all facilities to bring out all the secrets most damaging to the Government, but he only showed that he could tell lies even in the witness box. He showed his trump card. All he could say in defence was that he did not understand the meaning of the word "allegation". Truly, Sir, and I quote page 6, paragraph i5, from line 3 of the Report:

`I find that he [that is, Ong Eng Guan] would tell an untruth when it suited him.'

Sir, all this merely reveals to what opportunistic lengths Mr Ong Eng Guan would go in order to satisfy his own selfish ends. He was expelled from the P.A.P., and in vengeance he set about to destroy the Party by means of a systematic campaign of smear and vilification of the leaders of the Party and the Government. He had hoped to tarnish the good name of these leaders. Of course, this would mean the loss of the trust and confidence the people have in the Party and the Government. If the diabolical machinations had succeeded, it would ultimately have meant the fall of the P.A.P. Government, in which case, as I have mentioned before in this House, it would have meant not just one by-election in one constituency but a general election in 51 constituencies. Probably that is one of the main reasons why the Opposition are secretly supporting Mr Ong Eng Guan. It may sound trite, Sir, but parliamentary democracy is on trial in all the newly independent and semi-independent countries in this part of the world. Where parliamentary democracy has failed, it has almost been entirely due to inefficiency, nepotism and corruption. Examples are not far to seek.

We in the P.A.P. have pledged ourselves to democratic socialism. To make democratic socialism work, we need above all a clean, honest and efficient government. Whatever the faults of the P.A.P., we are all proud that we on this side of the House are clean and honest. Comparisons are odious but you will recall, Sir, that we had a Minister for Education in the past Lim Yew Hock Government who turned a miner after he fled the country with a substantial loot. Which brings my attention to the intriguing way the Opposition has reacted all along to Mr Ong Eng Guan's allegations in this Assembly. You will recall also, Sir, that the Member for Aljunied had called for an early by-election. The Opposition not only supported the early by-election before the truth of the allegations was established, but went a step further and made statements that Mr Ong Eng Guan was fighting the battle for the Opposition. We all know why the S.P.A. will not be contesting the forthcoming by-election. It has been abundantly clear that Mr Ong Eng Guan is fighting the battle of the S.P.A. and all the Right-wing forces of the Opposition in spite of repeated denials. The Opposition has not dared to come out in the open, but unfortunately the Member for Kampong Kembangan has rather indiscreetly let the cat out of the bag by singing his praises of Ong Eng Guan. Does the Opposition think that the secret help to Ong Eng Guan will enable the Right-wing forces to rise again from the ashes? At this point, may I answer the Member for Cairnhill? Unfortunately he is not here now. He asked a very simple question. He asked: What is the Right-wing? Well, let me tell him, though everybody knows he is no political chicken. The difference was very patent in the mass rally held at the Happy World Stadium last Sunday. He did mention that. While 15,000 Left-wingers attended the mass rally to show their disgust and abhorrence at the murder of Patrice Lumumba, all the Right-wingers stayed away. Did we see the moral rearmament supporters or the Lim Yew Hocks? When all the Singapore Left-wingers showed their determination-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see any relevance to this debate before us. Unless the Member for Queenstown can explain or connect his explanation to this debate, I do not think I can permit him to continue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, probably you were absent when the Member for Cairnhill was speaking about the mass rally and Lumumba.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that is relevant.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I wonder if Mr Deputy Speaker will allow me to answer certain points which the Member for Cairnhill has raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, carry on.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was saying, Sir, that all the Left-wingers showed determination in their struggle against colonialism and imperialism. But where were the Opposition? Did they show they were anti-colonialists and anti-imperialistic? Did they show they were ready to fight on a united front for the freedom of Singapore? That, Sir, is my answer to the difference between the Right-wingers and the Left-wingers. It is the difference between pro-colonialists and anti-colonialists. It is the difference between the opportunists and political adventurers and genuine patriots who truly work for the advancement and welfare of the people. I also remember, Sir, that in one of the mass rally speeches made in the Happy World Stadium last Sunday, the names of Mobutu, Kasavubu, Tshombe and Lim Yew Hock were all linked together. I cannot see what sort of blood relationship they have. But whatever it is, we certainly do not want Tshombes and such persons in our Malaya. I would not go so far as to say that Ong Eng Guan is also linked with Tshombe. But from the performance of the Opposition today, who is to know what part the Lim Yew Hocks play in this linkage of adventurism, opportunism and reaction?

Mr Deputy Speaker, although this may appear to be a slight digression, it has all been mentioned in answer to what Members of the Opposition have raised. The whole world knows how opportunism and reaction are very intimately linked up with machinations and out-pourings of malicious falsehoods to injure people. The Member for Aljunied has intimated that Mr Ong Eng Guan will stand as a candidate in the Hong Lim by-election. Really, Sir, we can say now that the people of Hong Lim and all the people of Singapore will know that an opportunist and a proven liar will make yet another attempt to deceive the people.

5.33 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today in this Assembly we have spent a lot of time debating the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the allegations made by Ong Eng Guan. I want to make two points here. Firstly, the maintenance of justice and the dignity of this Assembly. Secondly, I want to stress that the Right-wing group has allied itself with Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Let me now deal with the first point. In South-east Asia today many countries are practising parliamentary democracy. Our State is one of them. Whether this system can succeed or not depends on how responsible people practise this democratic system. What I want to stress is that we want to maintain this system. And the main purpose of the Inquiry Commission is to disclose the facts to the people to enable them to understand clearly our attitude, our speeches and our actions in this Assembly. Unfortunately, many Opposition Members are afraid of this Inquiry Commission. Why? It is because they are afraid that the facts will be disclosed so that the people will know the truth. And they are also afraid and worried about the appointment of this Inquiry Commission.

I believe my colleagues just now have clearly made many points relating to the privileges of this Assembly. Let us all hope that the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance will be used for the last time, and that in future there will be no such incident. Let us all hope that everybody here will maintain the decorum and dignity of this Assembly.

I will now come back to those two persons who have left our Party and are now sitting on the opposite benches. They had in the past shouted very clean and healthy slogans and expressed their views to good effect. Let me remind them that they must not forget what they had professed in the past. They must now renew their stand. During the course of the speeches of the Opposition Members, though they have declared that they have no link with Mr Ong Eng Guan, yet it cannot be denied that they have "sub-links" with Mr Ong Eng Guan. Since the Ong Eng Guan incident, they have been supporting him. Now is a good chance for them to make a political fortune. Ong Eng Guan's incident is something like a life-boat for them to sail in, so that they can prolong their political life. But they will find later that this life-boat, when caught in a great storm, will not bring them back to their political dreamland, but will capsize in the storm and bring them destruction.

Just now the hon. Member for Cairnhill has made many allegations. He had quoted at length in support of Mr Ong Eng Guan. If he is not connected with Ong Eng Guan, why should he make such lengthy speeches in support of him? This attitude of his and his speech clearly show that he has been contradicting himself.

Lastly, let me mention this fact. Not long ago in this Assembly, our Leader of the House moved a motion relating to the dignity and decorum of this Assembly. At that time, the Opposition Member, Mr Ong Eng Guan, also supported this motion. But then, when Mr Ong Eng Guan had made certain allegations to the detriment of the people both inside and outside this Assembly, the other Opposition Members did not come forward to support the motion. They now only want to renew their old dream. All this shows that Mr Ong Eng Guan and those Right-wing political elements are united. They are connected and they form a united front. It seems that they still have a chance to renew their old daydream. But after the election, they will have a very good chance to reply. Of course, this reply will depend on the wise judgment of the people in Hong Lim, so that this will lead them to see the present political situation in Singapore. This result will also show the political standard of the people of Singapore.

5.44 p.m.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. From the basis of the Inquiry Report, which has been tabled in the Assembly today, it is clear that Mr Ong Eng Guan had used the privilege of this Assembly to spread malicious falsehoods and to injure persons both outside and inside this Assembly who have no opportunity to defend themselves. What a shame it is for a man who claims to represent the people, but who, in actual fact, in using the freedom of speech in this Assembly, has made false allegations instead. It is the principle of any government which believes in parliamentary democracy that there is no absolute freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech to tell the truth. He must not just say it in the Assembly, but he must be prepared to substantiate it outside the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, on this issue, many speakers from the Opposition have indirectly opposed the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. They say that whether Mr Ong Eng Guan has told a lie or otherwise, this motion is to expedite the by-election at Hong Lim. But they have forgotten that the coming by-election at Hong Lim is the result of a vacancy created by Ong Eng Guan himself. In fact, the vacancy is inter-related with the allegations of nepotism made by Mr Ong Eng Guan against Ministers. Mr Speaker, with the Report before us, those Opposition Members have started to fraternise with Mr Ong Eng Guan whom we know today as a political adventurer, and who is prepared to do anything to achieve his own political ends.

Mr Speaker, I feel strange towards the two Members, the Member for Aljunied and his colleague, the Member for Punggol, who have vehemently opposed the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. However, I am of the opinion that when the Commission was sitting and calling for witnesses to substantiate the allegations made by their colleague, none of them had the guts to come forward to give evidence in defence of their colleague in the Commission. If it were me, Mr Speaker, in the name of the Party, subsequently I would resign my seat in the Assembly to which I was elected under that Party ticket.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I was very much impressed by the speech made by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. His speech was fiery perhaps because of the fasting month. But what tickles me is this, when I remember the incident of children when they argue among themselves. They spit or mock at one another and they will flee, leaving the arguments alone, not wishing to have a sight any more of their enemies. I feel, Mr Speaker, what has been brought home by the Minister for Culture on the Government's attitude of not caring as to which side the Opposition is going to vote is clear to those who are following the political developments in Singapore.

As a result of the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr Ong Eng Guan, there are political parties, in this Assembly and outside the Assembly, which have fraternised and have flirted with Mr Ong Eng Guan. Those political parties are hoping that they are not concerned with who will win, so long as the P.A.P. is defeated in the forthcoming by-election at Hong Lim. Although Ong Eng Guan has been regarded as a liar by the Commission of Inquiry, their aim is merely to support Ong Eng Guan in order to defeat the P.A.P. in the by-election. It is clear by this that these political parties have made Ong Eng Guan their tool in order to oppose the People's Action Party. Whether or not they themselves have anything in common with Ong Eng Guan is immaterial.

On this issue, since the Ong Eng Guan incident, U.M.N.O. has not yet started to flirt with Ong Eng Guan. From the action of the Member for Kampong Kembangan, it may not be U.M.N.O. but it may be that the Member for Kampong Kembangan himself has flirted with Ong Eng Guan. Mr Speaker, when mentioning this issue, I am impressed when I think of how Ong Eng Guan dreamed of becoming the Prime Minister. Likewise, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has an axe to grind with me.

In fact, the Member for Kampong Kembangan himself did say that at one time I did become his political tutor. Concerning the clashes that nearly happened between the Chinese and the Malays, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has taken the opportunity in this Assembly to say that I approached U.M.N.O. and asked for their co-operation. Mr Speaker, this is true because rumours which will precipitate communal clashes in this country will merely reflect on the Government, and it is the responsibility of all the people who love peace to dispel those rumours. Therefore, I invited U.M.N.O. and asked them if they would like to co-operate to wipe out these rumours. My invitation was welcomed by U.M.N.O. For that reason, the Minister for Culture in his speech in this Assembly on the movement of A.R.T.I.S. did mention the leaders of U.M.N.O. as well as Muslim religious leaders who co-operated with the Government. It is our common responsibility towards the prosperity and well-being of the people in Singapore. Also, Mr Speaker, I would like to stress in this Assembly the reason why we invited U.M.N.O. to take part with us to wipe out these rumours, because many factions from those responsible for spreading the malicious rumours did implicate several leaders who were involved in this movement. Therefore-

Mr Speaker: I think the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary has gone far enough to answer the point made by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. In fact, the point made by the Member for Kampong Kembangan was quite irrelevant, and I permitted the Parliamentary Secretary to speak until now in answer to the point made. I do not think he should go into further details.

Inche Yaacob: Mr Speaker, I merely explained just now in answer to the Member for Kampong Kembangan. I talked about the false rumours because there is a feeling that the Government has forgotten the good co-operation rendered by U.M.N.O. Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has clearly said that Ong Eng Guan was instrumental in breaking up the unity of U.M.N.O. in Singapore. Whether it is true or otherwise, it is left to the Member for Kampong Kembangan. But when he mentioned that a number of persons who are now on the Government side were former members of U.M.N.O., I would like to say that we who left U.M.N.O. to join the People's Action Party did so not because of Ong Eng Guan, but because of the P.A.P.'s social, democratic ideology. A great number of the members who left U.M.N.O. and joined the People's Action Party at one time comprised Left-wing elements. They conducted political activities in the Federation which were later banned.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must now stop the hon. Member from continuing in that strain. Now, will he come back to the motion?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I merely said that just now so that there will be no misunderstanding in this Assembly. It is possible that trying to implicate Members of the Government will confuse matters, but I would like to say that the groups which opposed the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister in this Assembly clearly state their stand, that they have some sinister motive or that they have begun to flirt with Ong Eng Guan. For that reason, they have not got the guts to come out openly. If outside of the Assembly they were to say that the People's Action Party is no longer representative of the people, then they should contest the by-election to fight the P.A.P. But what do we find, Mr Speaker? In an indirect manner, they are supporting Ong Eng Guan and using him as a shield and a tool to defeat the People's Action Party in the by-election. This is a very dishonourable act.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid my Malay is not so good. But the translation is that there has been an allegation that Members of the Opposition are guilty of a dishonourable act. If that translation is correct, I think the Member ought to withdraw that allegation.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw it. But what I meant to say was that the method of opposing in an indirect manner in politics is unwise, because we must come out in the open. If the present Government is no longer representative of the people, then the Party which could claim to represent the people should come forward and put up their candidates so that the people could pass judgment as to which Party really represents the people.

Mr Speaker: Shall we adjourn?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That this debate be now adjourned."

As Members are aware, this is the Puasa month and Malay Members have to go to mosque at 6.50 p.m. to break their fast.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this debate be now adjourned.

Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: Please move.