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

The complete somersault by the six unionists who represent the anti-national Communist Left after the Chairman of the P.A.P. announced on 9th June our objective of total eradication of colonialism in Singapore and complete independence through merger with the Federation, or a larger Federation when constitutional talks open in 1963, speaks for itself.

Let us not be sidetracked by the demand of the anti-national Left group to release the detainees, etc. Let us be clear about our short-term and long-term objectives. While our immediate objective is, as the Chairman of the Party declared on 9th June, i.e. - the total eradication of colonialism in Singapore and complete independence through merger with the Federation in 1963, that of the anti-national Left group is full internal self-government in 1963. The people of Singapore will not be deceived about talk of minimum demands. While our long-term aim is a democratic non-Communist socialist Malaya, that of the anti-national Left group is an independent Singapore with merger suddenly becoming a long-term objective.

The lines are no longer blurred. It is plain that the anti-national Left group have used the detainee, citizenship and other issues as a red herring to distract public attention from their fundamental deviation from the P.A.P.'s basic principles and policies. They have not answered Government's offer to disclose the grounds for refusing their citizenship. Neither have they answered our question whether they seriously suggested that the Government should iii the midst of the Anson by-election risk a constitutional crisis on the question of the detainees. They have remained silent to this day even after the treachery they committed against their colleague, the President of the T.U.C., who stood as the P.A.P.'s candidate in Anson.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I venture to suggest that they cannot answer the question even now, because it is not the P.A.P. alone which is waiting for the explanation from them, but the people of Singapore, and the people of the Federation of Malaya as a whole have called them to account for their deviation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion before us will of necessity be put to an open vote, precisely because it is an open issue. The treachery committed by the non-national Leftist minority is a recurrence of the same blunder committed by the M.C.P. 13 years ago. In political terms, it is not treachery against the P.A.P. as such, but it is one committed against Malayan nationalism comprising the Malays, Chinese and Indians and all others who belong to no other country but Malaya.

The political innocents who have been so easily duped into shouting about the detainees, citizenship, etc, must be aware that the fight is still a three-cornered one until such time as when we achieve merdeka through merger.

It is today an acknowledged fact that the P.A.P. is a nationalist force in the southernmost part of Malaya. Any anti-national move whether by the Communist Left or the communalist Right will he looked upon by the people of Malaya as detrimental to the interests of Malayan nationalism.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I express complete support for the motion before the House.

An hon. Member: More trouble!

10.58 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the problem confronting us today is, if we say serious, it is not serious; neither can we say that it is not serious, it is not because I wish to support what has been uttered by some of the supporters, the Back-benchers of the Government, but I am surprised that the Government has decided to introduce into this House such a problem, i.e. calling the House to vote confidence in the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in my view, the problem is purely a quarrel. It is like a quarrel between husband and wife. That is to say, the wife has fraternised with another person and the husband, not knowing what to do, has therefore gone to a third party to seek reconciliation. As for me, if my wife flirts with another man, I will give her a divorce of the third degree! I hope the Government will take such a step.

The Member for Moulmein has accused us of being a rojak Party. That is a stupid accusation. I can accuse the P.A.P. of being a gadoh-gadoh Party. I am sure that you. Mr Deputy Speaker, has tasted gadoh-gadoh. It is very delicious indeed.

In addition, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has constantly accused us of being pro-capitalist, pro-colonialist, etc. If we are pro-capitalist or pro-colonialist, why do they seek support from us? Let them be bold and go forward and do not come to us for support. If this Government is sincere and is dedicated to serve the people of Singapore, it should take positive and definite steps in the interest of peace, as we did when we were in the Government. It should not shirk its responsibility. It has to realise its responsibility. If it fails, to realise that, then it should get out.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have learnt today that Communist elements tried to disrupt the P.A.P. in the troubled days faced by the P.A.P. in 1957. It is only today that this is exposed despite the fact that we had explained in this Chamber when we were in the Government that such events emanated from the Malayan Communist Party. The Deputy Prime Minister said that they were able to eliminate the M.C.P. elements during the troubled days of the P.A.P. in 1957 because of the strength of the Party. This is completely wrong, because it was the Lim Yew Hock Government which helped the P.A.P. if at that time the Lim Yew Hock Government did not arrest and put these elements into Changi Gaol, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and other Ministers could not have held office in the P.A.P in 1957. So we helped them out of their difficulties; otherwise they would not be in existence today.

Another accusation was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health about our great leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on the question of confederation. He accused the Tunku of making such a proposition with the help and co-operation of the British, which means that he was a tool of the British. This is a very serious accusation and I challenge the hon. Member to repeat that outside the precincts of the Assembly. I believe we from the Alliance-

Mr David Marshall: Do I understand that Members of this Assembly have special privileges? I would ask whether it is in order for these challenges to be made. They seem to me to be a limitation on the liberty and freedom of speech in the Assembly, and make a very grievous inroad-

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kandasamy): Order. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr David Marshall: The point of order, Sir, is this: is it proper to make a challenge to a person to repeat outside what he thinks proper to say here?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have allowed that as it is in order.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Sir.

Dato Abdul Hamid: (In Malay): Thank you very much. Mr Deputy Speaker.

Talking about challenges. I seem to remember that in 1956 the Member for Anson, who was then sitting at the back there [indicating], issued a challenge to the present Prime Minister who was then sitting in the Opposition as the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The challenge was taken up by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but the present Member for Anson did not take part in the Tanjong Pagar by-election.

I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health to repeat what he has said outside, because I know for a fact that it is nothing but a lie. If there are people in Singapore or in Malaya who resolutely oppose British colonialism, Tunku Abdul Rahman is one of them. There is no braver person than the Tunku himself to oppose British colonialism. It is our leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who challenged the British. He uttered speeches which no other leaders dared to do. Now there are people who say that they are anti-colonialist. At that time, if they could have licked the feet of the British, they would have done so. Similarly in the speeches of the Member for Anson during the Anson by-election, be accused indirectly and insinuated that Tunku Abdul Rahman is anti-Chinese. He dared to say this without any foundation. That is also a lie. It is not true to say that Tunku Abdul Rahman is anti-Chinese. We will most definitely not co-operate with the M.C.A., and for that matter with any political Party.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the forum held at the University of Malaya, representatives of the various political Parties - the Alliance, the Workers Party and a trade union group - discussed the problem of Malaysia. I was not present at the forum, but I was surprised, on reading the newspapers the following day, to learn that the Member for Anson referred to his meeting with the Prime Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in 1955 on the subject of a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

11.10 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid: When I read of it. I was really amazed because I myself was in the company of the Member for Anson at the meeting that morning with the Tunku in his old house - not his new house. At that time, the Tunku was not the Prime Minister. He was the Chief Minister. I was present at that meeting. Why I say that the explanation of the Member for Anson is false is because he stated that there was a big function that morning. I was present with him in the Tunku's house. I remember we had kopi-o (coffee without milk), one egg, some toast and butter.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member for Geylang Serai satisfy me that this is relevant to this motion?

Dato Abdul Hamid: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe there is some relevance to the motion that we are debating now because the Prime Minister, the Member for Anson and other Members dwelt at some length on the problem of Malaysia. So I would like to explain what took place in Kuala Lumpur in 1956, otherwise such statements might mislead not only Members in this House but also the people outside this House. It is not that I wish to sing anybody's praises, but this is based on fact. I have asked the Tunku to rebut the statements made at the forum, but he, being a gentleman, considered it a small matter and that there was no necessity for him to make a denial. Therefore, I take this opportunity to raise this small issue. The statements hold no truth. The statements made by the Member for Anson in regard to the Tunku were distorted facts. I was present at that meeting. I sincerely say that three-quarters of what appeared in the Press was not true - not lies, but not true. If I say they were "lies", I may be asked to withdraw that word.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are now faced with is not the problem of the P.A.P. as a political Party or the internal struggle in the P.A.P. The problem confronting us is, in my view, a very serious one. If we are not careful, we will create a situation which we do not want to see. The stand of the Alliance - particularly U.M.N.O.-is clear. We oppose the Communists. On this Communist problem, I would like to state that we, as the indigenous people of Malaya, are prepared to shed our blood in the fight against the Communists. That is our uncompromising stand in any event, even if our houses are set on fire. At the same time, not only is the Communist problem a danger, but communalism also is a danger, just as nationalism is, i.e. nationalism Left, or nationalism Right. But in communalism, there is no Left or Right. One kind of communalism is for a special race, and the other is being used by political opportunists. If such a state of affairs exists I hope this will not happen in Singapore - the victims will not only be the P.A.P. alone, or the Alliance, or the Member for Anson, but all the people of Singapore.

Coming back to the motion before us and which is moved by the Government, we of the Alliance say that although we oppose Communism, we do not wish to be tools of anybody when it comes to voting on the motion.

11.18 p.m.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you are very much concerned over the political situation in this country. Therefore, I know you will be glad to hear all our views on the whole political situation and its developments.

The disputes that have taken place in our Party can be traced to the lack of democracy in the Party. People in the minority make decisions, and people who are in the majority have to follow them. In order to enable the democratic system to function and to be accepted in this country, a worker of a democratic political Party has the duty to see that there is democracy in the Party. But the leadership in our Party, on the contrary, have been shouting very loudly the word "democracy" and pretending to be democratic when there is no democratic spirit at all. The suppression of democracy for a long time in our Party has led to a big breach in the Left-wing forces.

Today we grieve very much at the whole situation and its developments, because all along we have only been able to work within a limited degree of democracy. But today we can no longer allow this state of affairs to go on forever. We have tried to avoid bringing this dispute into the open, but unfortunately our leadership have neglected and are indifferent to our views. They treat us as members who ought to be loyal to only a few leaders. Here let me tell the leadership this - we know that what we are loyal to is the People's Action Party and its programmes. We support the People's Action Party and its programmes and its objectives and we will not waver. As long as colonialism exists in this country, the struggle to liberate ourselves will not cease.

But why have the differences between us and the leadership developed to such a stage as this? I believe you must have read our Party platform, constitution and regulations and its manifesto. It is clear that today everybody can see that our leadership have not adhered to the principles of the Party and its manifesto in dealing with the question of principles and they have departed further and further from this objective. From the deeds and words of our Secretary-General, we do not believe that he is what he was. Our leadership are not prepared to implement the Party's objectives. Instead they accuse us of being traitors. But I wish to ask: who are the traitors? I think this can be decided by our members. But I want to stress that the Prime Minister and his leadership call us the Communist Left, and that he and his colleagues are the non-Communist Left. We feel ashamed and we regret that in addition to all this the Prime Minister likes to coin all sorts of new and curious phrases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the leadership employ this sort of tactics to spread terror far and wide among the people so as to dissuade them from supporting our objectives. This sort of tactics will not deceive the people for long. We want to stress further that ever since 1954 up till now, our stand has not changed. We have not changed from a socialist stand. We are not like some people who put on the cloak of Left-wing socialists. As a matter of fact, this group of people are really just like the Right-wing reactionaries. I believe you, Mr Speaker, understand this. History will record who really are the traitors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you know that those political detainees still under detention are our comrades. In the history of our Party these comrades have contributed much to expand our Party and they have made great sacrifices. They have devoted much energy and have worked for the Party, but colonialist agents like the Lim Yew Hock Government adopted high-handed tactics to arrest them. They were charged by the colonialists as Communists. These comrades are the former Paya Lebar Branch Chairman, Mr Tan Mook Teng, the former Secretary, Hong Cheng Han, and other comrades. They are still being detained. And our leadership, after having been in power for 25 months, still keep our comrades in gaol as Communists. As long as they are not released, it is a mockery to the Party and its members. Therefore, I feel the continued detention of political detainees is a shame.

Mr Speaker, I think you must have heard of the dispute in our Party about intra-party democracy. There has been talk of policies having been approved as a result of consultation among various types of members. This may appear to be true to outsiders, but the true picture of the collective leadership is this, Mr Speaker. I dare say that many policies have been approved as a result of consultation among the various types of members, but without the knowledge of many of us, including Parliamentary Secretaries and Party members in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to make special mention of the question of citizenship. It is indeed a shame for me to bring this matter up, because, as members of the People's Action Party, we have been fighting shoulder to shoulder with many comrades whose applications for citizenship are still being disregarded. This, just like the question of continued detention of political detainees, is again another insult to us. We cannot forever remain indifferent in this matter because it affects the future of the Party. We have seen many citizens of Singapore who voted in 1957 and 1959 during the general elections. But now because they have lost their birth certificates, they are required to apply for citizenship. Is this not an irony?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk about the increase of school fees of school girls. We had a discussion about this. This policy has been adopted in spite of the opposition of many of the members. Mr Speaker, this is typical of the so-called collective leadership. The majority has to obey the minority.

I now want to talk about the allocation of flats and the fixing of rents by the Ministry of National Development. At present, the houses allocated are fewer than formerly and the rents are higher, so that those with a great burden to shoulder - the wage-earners - are unable to stay there. This is the so-called socialist objective of our leadership. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard this leadership talking about socialism, about the equality of men and women. To increase the fees of school girls to make them the same as those of school boys - that is equality!

This question of personal relief on income tax. In the case of men, $2,000 is allowed; but in the case of women only $1,000 is allowed. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is equality between men and women. This is the criterion of socialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today at this special sitting we are required to pass a vote of confidence in the Government. I am puzzled why this matter should have been brought up here for decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, why could this matter not be decided by the 51 Branches of the Party? We have 39 members in the Assembly and we are as stable as ever. Why should there be such a show of democracy? For example, the Ong Eng Guan incident and the defeat in the Hong Lim by-election were discussed in the Party by the 51 representatives from the various Branches. Why is the present incident not referred to in a similar manner? Why should it be more serious than the incident I have just quoted? According to the principle of collective leadership, there is all the more reason for this decision to be made in the Party. They have no guts, as in the past, to bring this matter for decision in the Party. It is purely an internal party strife. It should be brought back to the Party for decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard the former Chief Minister, Tun Lim Yew Hock, saying to the leadership of the Party that if this is a motion to eradicate Communism, then he will vote for the motion. We here have listened to the Prime Minister making his analysis. He treated his former comrades, with whom he had fought shoulder to shoulder, as the Communist Left. The Prime. Minister has all along been working with these people, and why should he brand them as Communists? Why should he protect them instead of accusing them here today? I think this is a sort of "white" terror. We have seen the former Chief Minister using his tactics again before our leadership. He wants our leadership to make use of the same dirty tricks. We believe that our claim at present and in the future is the same.

I do not understand the Secretary General's letter to the Chairman of the Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 19th of July. There is here a criticism to this effect. The Government represents the people. The Government, on behalf of the people, intends to do many unpleasant things. But we know that the people have elected us. Why did they elect us? Was it because they wanted us to do something unpleasant to them? Or whether they wanted us to sell them? I think this cannot be explained in this way, because everyone wants to retain forever a good name and not a bad name.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now want to talk about a female Member who is a member of the Central Executive Committee. Just now, Mr Speaker, if you have listened to her, she may have appeared to be reasonable. But this particular comrade of the feminine sex may not have understood the whole affair. How many cadres are there in the Party nobody knows. We know that in the Hokkien Huay Kuan the cadres elected on 30th May, 1959, have since been disqualified and withdrawn. We believe that all the Members in this Assembly are cadres. According to this, if we are not cadres, surely we would not have been candidates for the elections and the Party would not have trusted us. But the strange thing is that among the eight of us, two are not cadres of the Party. Therefore, this question has arisen out of internal party strife, and I think it should be brought back to the Parts for a decision so that the Party will be more united and can stand more firmly on its standpoint to achieve its anti-colonialist aims.

11.40 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has been looked up to as one of the politically advanced countries compared with many areas around it. It is a matter of regret that today, when Members of Parliament from overseas are present in this House, the P.A.P. Government should present such a pathetic spectacle and give such a classic exhibition and example of how parliamentary democracy could be abused. Sir, what has happened today is not something new. This is not the first time that Government has used Standing Orders, parliamentary democracy and the Singapore constitution, to bring party quarrels into this Chamber, and to thrash out party differences. You will remember, Sir, when the Member for Hong Lim went against the Prime Minister, we have had to sit here session after session, day after day, listening to the P.A.P. scolding and accusing ex-P.A.P. and vice-versa. And all this, Sir, is done at public expense, mind you.

Secondly, today when the P.A.P. Back-benchers are defying the party leadership, we are again brought into this Chamber and asked to give a vote of confidence to the Government. We have constantly been pointing out to the Government their inefficiency, their arrogance, their undemocratic behaviour, and the damage they have done to Singapore and her economy. Sir, I am sure I can credit the P.A.P. leaders with sufficient intelligence to know that we will not give them this vote of confidence on the part that they have played, or on their past non-achievements. I also congratulate the leadership, Sir, on their ingenuity in creating a situation which they thought would corner the Opposition. They tried to make it so that we either voted for them or we would be supporting what they called the Communist Left-wing. The Prime Minister hoped, Sir, with his Mr Lion and Mr Bear fairy tale, to channel the issue to either we vote for the non-Communist Left or the Communist Left. On second thoughts, Sir, I was wondering whether this is meant only for the Opposition. Only it is also meant for the general public, to make them feel that there is no other Party or people except the Communist Left and non-Communist Left-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Speaker is seated in this Chair and not in the gallery.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I am sorry, Sir. So that the public will have to decide whether they want to side with the Government or, if they do not want to side with the Government, then they will have to side with the Communist Left. But, Sir, it must be admitted that it is now obvious from the speeches, especially those of the Back-benchers (who, if I remember rightly, without exception, called for a 51-Branch meeting) and from that call, that the real issue before the House is whether the P.A.P. leaders should convene a general meeting of the 51 Branches or not. What have we to do with it? We came here thinking that the Government wanted a vote of confidence from the House to strengthen their hand in working for the security and peace of the State of Singapore and its people. We came here prepared to support the Government in this fight against Communist subversion. But today the Prime Minister in his speech has stated categorically that the Government does not intend to do this. He has said that when there is trouble from the Communists he will hand over to the British and it is up to them to fight the Communists. Then why does the Government want a vote of confidence today?

I have said before, Sir, and I say it now, that whenever the P.A.P. Government finds itself in a difficult spot they try to confuse not only the Opposition but also the public. They can no longer deny it now. The position is clearly this. Some or many of the P.A.P. Back-benchers and Party members wanted a meeting of the 51 Branches. The P.A.P. leadership refused to convene it. This issue has been clouded by the motion before the House today. With due respect to you, Sir, actually we would be voting on the issue whether we think the Government is right in not convening this meeting or whether the Back-benchers are right in demanding the meeting and the Government should convene this meeting. That was what all the speeches are about today. If we vote with the Government, then we agree that the Government is right; and if we vote against the Government, then we agree that the Back-benchers are right. Let us not be confused, Sir. We shall not be voting, as the Prime Minister's fairy tale tried to make it appear to be, on the issue whether we have confidence in a non-Communist Government or whether we would rather have Singapore handed over to the Communists. That is not the issue. We will not be voting on that. The Prime Minister tried to make it a "Heads I win, tails you lose" affair. If we vote for the Government, they win. If we vote against them, as the Prime Minister's fairy tale tried to make it, we are siding with the pro-Communist faction. So we lose.

In view of this, Sir, it appears as, though it might be wise for us to abstain. But we feel very strongly that the confidence the P.A.P. Government won in 1959 no longer holds, as has been shown in the results of the by-elections in Hong Lim and Anson. The Alliance Opposition, Sir, is not at all surprised that the people of Hong Lim and Anson have rejected the P.A.P. Government. In fact, we have said it before that the people of Singapore, I repeat, Sir, Singapore, not only of Hong Lim and Anson, have lost confidence in the P.A.P. Government. And why should they not? How have they benefited during the two years of the P.A.P. government? You will recall, Sir, at the end of one year of P.A.P. Government, I tabled several questions. One of them was how many houses they had built. The answer was 125 as compared with the figures I gave - I forgot the exact figures - 3,000 odd built by the previous Government in their first year; 6,000-odd built not only by the Government, but by the whole State during that first year. During the first year of the P.A.P. Government, there were only 125 houses built. And what they have completed of S.I.T. flats, the rents are much higher than what the previous Government was charging. Unemployment has increased and this has led to increased robberies and crimes. The standard of living has gone down. The standard of education has gone down. The medical services have suffered deplorably. People have been deprived of the freedom of speech. This has now been confirmed by the Back-benchers themselves - an accusation that we have made before.

Sir, there are a hundred and one legitimate reasons to prove that the electorate has lost confidence in the Government. In view of this, we have no alternative but to vote against the motion.

I was amused when the Member for Bras Basah said that because it is a one man one vote system, the P.A.P. cannot adopt what she called the previous Government's "tactics". I suppose she was referring to the arrest of the subversives. But she said the P.A.P. have what she called "tricks". I do not know whether the translation was right. She called it "tricks" to deal with these people. I do not know what "tricks" she was referring to, is it the appointment of Political Secretaries and paying them $1,100 each? I do not know. She knows best what tricks she was referring to.

The second one amused me more. I just happened to hear, when I came in, that she was scolded by all the others - presumably they were mostly men. May I be so bold as to venture In suggest that she was scolded by them, because she was a woman? Maybe! I say this because I happen to know that the P.A.P. Government does not believe in giving women equal privileges. On several occasions when I happened to mention equal privileges for women, the Minister for Finance mocked me and said that while he believed that all men are equal, he believed also that some men are more equal than others. As for the Member for Pasir Panjang, he gave a clear picture of what the P.A.P.'s idea of equality for women means. Equal work, equal trouble but not equal benefit.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to make one observation; many people have been wondering why the P.A.P. have released the detainees, and why they have employed them as Political Secretaries. Could it be that the previous Government had made a deplorable mistake in arresting innocent men? Could it be that the present Government have found out that they had been wrongly arrested and that injustice had been done to them; and so they have been rewarded with a good post of $1,100? People have been wondering, but today their doubts have been cleared. The Prime Minister stated very clearly that they were Communists. He admitted they were Communists. So they were rightly detained. Anyway, that does not seem to solve the problem, Sir. That deepens the mystery. If they knew they were Communists or Communist leaders or Communist friends, or whatever term they used, why then were they employed? Why then are public funds used to pay them? As this fact is public knowledge now, why are public funds still being used to pay them? The mystery seems to deepen, Sir. The Prime Minister has given the answer! The public are still wondering why this is continued after the explanation has been given. I would love to see the reaction on their faces when they read the papers tomorrow, Sir, that the Prime Minister says the reason why they were released was that the P.A.P. did not intend to take repressive measures against the Communists. Their duty is to preserve the P.A.P. They did mention that they did not intend to take repressive action against the Communists for the sake of the British. Their duty is to preserve the P.A.P. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance Opposition, Sir, may I say that the policy of the Alliance is to preserve the State even before the Party?

11.55 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been summoned to this sitting - I should say it is through no fault of yours - at such short notice to decide whether this Government should stay or quit.

It is apparent from the speeches of those on the Government benches that there have been troubles and problems among themselves and that we have been called here today so that this Assembly can be used as an instrument by the present leaders of the Government to resolve their problems.

Sir, today's sitting should actually have been held either in the People's Association's centre at Kallang Airport or in the cultural centre with perhaps a different Chairman. But we have been asked to come here today and we feel we are attending more as observers and spectators attending a conference of P.A.P. members at a P.A.P. conference. Sir, it is my view and that of my colleagues that the best place to resolve the problems faced by the P.A.P. leadership and the leaders of the Government is within the P.A.P. itself.

Most of the issues brought out during the past few weeks between the P.A.P. Back-benchers and the Front-benchers are not new to us. They were brought up more than a year ago when the Hong Lim Branch of the P.A.P. submitted 16 resolutions to the P.A.P. leadership. Most of the speeches made today have nothing new in substance. I am sure we have heard them many times in this same Chamber when a year ago the Government leaders sought to vindicate themselves in the P.A.P. by bringing P.A.P. issues into this same Chamber.

Sir, a year ago we pointed out that the P.A.P. leadership had departed from the spirit and manifesto of the P.A.P., and from the firm resolve and anti-colonial stand of the P.A.P. It was in June last year that the Hong Lim Branch of the P.A.P. first raised the banner of revolt against the present P.A.P. leadership when it sought rectification of the mistakes and blunders of the P.A.P. leaders within the inner confines of a P.A.P. conference. Sir, it has been a long and tortuous journey for many of us, but we are glad that we have vindicated the political questions raised in the Hong Lim resolutions during the Hong Lim by-election. We are also happy to say here today that we are gaining wider and wider support on those vital questions.

Sir, it is interesting to note that it was after the catastrophic defeat of the P.A.P. leadership in the crucial Hong Lim by-election that the present pattern of conflict within the P.A.P. first unfolded itself.

00.01 a.m., 21st July, 1961.

I should not try to go too much into details because we are not P.A.P. members any more. Perhaps many will join us later on this side of the House! But in the by-election in Hong Lim, we did not ask for a mandate from the people calling on the Government to quit, for it was our belief that it was not in the interest of the country to have general elections so soon after the general elections in 1959. What we did was to urge the Government to rectify its mistakes and we sought a mandate that we shall be here as watchdogs on Government's policies, that we shall support those policies which are in the interest of the people, and that we will oppose those policies which are detrimental to the interest of the people.

Sir, it is our view that this Assembly must not be used as an instrument to resolve intra-party conflicts or personal conflicts other than those of a political nature. Sir, only political issues that are the subject of public controversy and of public import should be brought to this Chamber. Now that the battle for Hong Lim and Anson is over, it is high time that the P.A.P. Government settled down and did some strenuous work for the pay they have been collecting every month from the public purse to better the welfare and the livelihood of the overwhelming masses of the people. They should make an attempt to tackle many of the problems confronting us. It is not in the national interest for the Government to precipitate crisis after crisis, for it would be the poverty stricken masses and the people who would be made to suffer.

Sir, there is nothing to prevent this Government from carrying on. As far as I know, no Member on the Opposition has questioned the Government's authority to carry on. Perhaps the Member for Anson has asked the Prime Minister to resign from the Party. He has not asked the Government to resign. But at today's sitting, we have been asked to give blanket approval for all Government's actions and policies, whether in the past or in the possible future. Sir, we are afraid we cannot give such blanket approval. We have been asked to give Government a blank cheque, and today we shall not give it.

00.05 a.m.

Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the time came for holding the by-election in Anson, the P.A.P. nominated its candidate, Inche Mahmud bin Awang, in his capacity as the President of the T.U.C. to contest the by-election. Since the by-election campaign started, some of the T.U.C. leaders, numbering six in all. led by Mr Lim Ching Siong, took the opportunity of raising many issues in the newspapers with the sole object of bringing about the defeat of Inche Mahmud bin Awang in the by-election. This was obvious. Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends know that Inche Mahmud bin Awang is a leader of the workers movement and a friend to them in the T.U.C. But the actions of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends were acts of treachery, because, as the Treasurer in the Anson by-election, I could see and understand very well, with my clear thinking as the Secretary of the T.U.C., the move taken by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues. They did not stop there. That was followed by eight Assemblymen who put out a joint statement in the newspapers opposing the P.A.P. Possibly they were influenced by Mr Lim Ching Siong or by the propaganda and tactics adopted by him. As a result of this, the P.A.P. held a meeting of Assemblymen at which a decision was taken and agreed to by a majority vote that Assemblymen should not issue public statements in respect of political matters. It is a matter for regret that eight Assemblymen have flouted party discipline, which is tantamount to an act of treachery towards the Party. They issued a public statement two days before Polling Day. What was the motive then behind the release of the joint statement of the eight Assemblymen and Mr Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues?

Mr Speaker, Sir,I have been active in the labour movement. I have been a colleague of Mr Lim Ching Siong and the two of us together have faced hardships. I understand the tactics adopted by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends were responsible for the defeat of the P.A.P. candidate, Inche Mahmud bin Awang. He was suddenly stabbed in the back by his close friends.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to state that I wholeheartedly support the motion of the Prime Minister.

00.10 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the motion moved by the Prime Minister, many Members, both of the Government and of the Opposition, have expressed their views.

I was a bit late for this afternoon's sitting and when I came in, I found a seat occupied by a "military officer's. He stood arrogantly and spoke as a warrior or a hero fighting for the rights of man in Singapore. At the same time, he thumped his chest over his victory in Anson, as though it was of great significance to him; but he forgot that behind his victory in Anson was an act which was condemned by all the people in Singapore. Such a dirty act resulted in his victory and his re-entry into this Chamber, but it should not be forgotten that this champion of the masses once challenged a Member to resign and when it was accepted, he fled from the by-election.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this motion the Member for Anson has proclaimed himself a hero in this Chamber. But in the Anson by-election, he adopted many mean tactics to achieve victory. On the other hand, the P.A.P. repeatedly stated in the by-election in Anson that the winning or losing of the by-election would not be an issue to the Party. If they were to lose it, they would go down honourably and cleanly; and if they were to win it, they would do so likewise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what amazes me is that the Member for Anson is making himself out to be a genuine nationalist. He has brought up issues which would result in disunity amongst the various races in Singapore. Mr Speaker, we should not forget that we the people of Singapore are today struggling for the creation of a united Malayan nation, with a single national language, a single national culture, and a single fatherland. But the Member for Anson has tried to play up communal sentiments in order to gain a seat in Anson.

Mr Speaker: Order. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary is not now on a platform of the Anson by-election! I think all his remarks are completely irrelevant to the motion. He may later on have another occasion to attack the Member for Anson for what he did in winning the by-election. But let us get back to the motion before the House.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am not speaking as though I am on an election platform. It was merely to clarify, because the Member for Anson just now thumped his chest over his victory and said indirectly that he alone is the fighter for mankind. So it is necessary for me to expose whether there is any truth in the statement made just now by the Member for Anson.

However, Mr Speaker, there is close connection between his victory and the motion before us moved in the name of the Prime Minister, because we are now faced with trials and challenges from forces which are against national unity in Singapore. The Member for Anson dwelt on communalism and said that the Chinese should not forget their ancestral culture, as also on their part the Indians and the Malays, it is as clear as daylight that communal sentiments are being worked up when we are making all-out efforts to create a national culture

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary must take regard of comments from the Chair. I do not remember the Member for Anson mentioning anything about communalism in his speech in this Chamber. Let us try to keep to the rails as far as possible. Time is getting on.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, that represents the tail-piece of the election speeches made in Anson. I am not saying that you, Mr Speaker, are not giving me freedom, but in order to conserve time I will adhere to your ruling.

Mr Speaker, the issue now is that the people of Singapore, who are anti-colonialists, should consolidate Left-wing unity. Mr Speaker, what is meant by "unity"? "Unity" can be interpreted in many ways. I will give a number of illustrations. Mr Speaker. For example, there are many kinds of animals living in the forest. When the forest is on fire, the animals take flight to save their skins. At that time the tiger forgets the deer; the snake forgets the frog. Although they are enemies, common interest dictates that they should flee from the fire. After the fire is over and everything is back to normal, they will then get together. What is unity to make a broom when the broom is used by people who have no real use for it? Or is unity to mix cucumber with durians in one basket, which is impossible? It is not possible for the durians and the cucumber to be put in one basket without first removing the thorns from the durians. It will not be safe for the cucumber to be mixed with the durians.

Mr Speaker, I have given several definitions of unity. In attempting to seek unity, we should realise that the P.A.P. has clearly stated its stand- that it is fighting for an independent, democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya. Although we have been challenged by certain groups, we have repeatedly stated our unequivocal stand. If we take an anti-Communist stand, it means we will go into the Western bloc; if, on the other hand, we adopt a pro-Communist attitude, we will be horses for the Communists to ride on.

The Prime Minister has had occasion to say that in fighting for the interests of the people of Singapore, we, as socialists and non-Communists, have repeated that what is good for the Communists may not be good for us; what is good for them may also be good for us; and what is not good for us may also be not good for them. But what is good for us, although it is bad for them, we will use in our interests even if we have to fight them. This is clear from the speeches on the policy of the Party.

Now we ask ourselves, Mr Speaker, is it true that we are retreating? Suppose we are faced with four or five enemies in front and there are friends at our backs with a hammer. In trying to evade blows from the enemies, if we turn round to our friends it will mean that we are giving an opportunity to our enemies in front to hit us. Such an act is even more treacherous than stabbing from the back, because stabbing from the back means that it is an act of so-called friends who are traitors. This act gives an opportunity to our enemies to kill us. This happened with the group of people who claim to be fighters of the labour movement - Lim Ching Siong and his friends who have lulled the masses with sweet music. Lim Ching Siong and his friends are able to influence certain members of the P.A.P. with the result that these members dance to their tune. They have forgotten themselves and have started to wash dirty linen in public, which they should do within the Party, to show that they are the real fighters of the people. This also is a treacherous act committed toward the Party.

Mr Speaker, in facing this problem, we should understand the real meaning of unity, and this motion has been moved by the Prime Minister not on our bended knees to the Opposition to seek their support. If the people feel that we have betrayed their trust, they will be able to judge our acts and our deeds on this motion. Briefly, Mr Speaker, in the interests of national unity, it is vital to create a single united nation with a single culture, and a single national language.

I fully support the motion moved by the Prime Minister.

00.30 a.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the motion moved by the Hon. the Prime Minister, I would like to state here that if I were to support it I would be considered mad. The reason why I say so is that the motion here states that the House is asked to express its full confidence in the Government, a government which I see at that moment is a Bubor Kachang Government. The reason why I say so is that the Government, whether on the Front bench or on the Back-bench, are quarrelling in front of us. How then can we say that we will support them and give them a vote of confidence when they themselves are quarrelling among themselves? Mr Speaker, Sir, even if you agree with the motion. I do not agree to give the Government a vote of confidence.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan must remember that the Speaker is supposed to be above all politics. I do not think it is fair to drag the Speaker into a motion of this nature.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): It was not my purpose to ask you, Mr Speaker, to be involved in politics. But this is my view of the political situation which I must put before the House. In principle, I regret I cannot give even point one per cent of my support to the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the new champions. I do not know whether they are new ones, but from my reading of the papers I notice they are making a lot of noise in the Assembly to hit at the Government. But tonight I can say that these people in the Assembly today are not true champions of the people. In my view, they have been wrongly chosen to sit in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I give my sympathy to the Member for Anson who has just joined us in this Assembly. I do not like to hit out at him. But I would like to give my views on various matters raised in his speech in this Assembly. I feel the Member could not have fathomed the true feelings of the people of Singapore and the feelings of the people from U.M.N.O. if my father in the Federation is being opposed, the son would now like to take issue with the Member for Anson on matters that he has raised in this Assembly. Before he goes any further, I hope he can see ahead. Probably he cannot see whether or not there is a wall behind him. But I would urge him to look ahead. If there is a leader of a political party who says that he wishes to bring about the independence of Singapore within the jurisdiction of the United Nations, I am sorry to say. Mr Speaker, Sir, that he has forgotten this. He should always remember that although U.M.N.O. may not have many members in this Assembly, yet U.M.N.O. has a very clear voice outside the Assembly to speak to people who wish to bring independence to Singapore. We Malays-

Mr Speaker: Members have been speaking a bit loudly in this Chamber, but I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan wins the first prize! Will he please modulate his voice?

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clearly stated in the Constitution of Singapore that we, the indigenous people, have certain clear rights. We are not willing to be under the administration of the United Nations, or under the tutelage of the United Nations; nor do we wish to become independent without merger with the Federation. So this is one of the views expressed by one of the Sons of Tunku Abdul Rahman on behalf of the people of the Federation of Malaya.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I come back to the P.A.P. I am amazed that after two years it is only now that I am aware that there is no democracy within the P.A.P. I do not blame the Ministers on the Front-bench. But I blame the people on the Back-benches. If indeed they know that the Party has not been practising democracy, why is it that they have tolerated it for two years until their Members rebel against the Government, whether in this Assembly or outside? I do not like to regard them as robots. I am sure it is not so in the Party, because they always speak with great pride that they have been elected by the people. Five Members are going out and it seems the party is tottering. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, after two years there now comes a statement from the Federation for a plan to bring about a merger, and it is then that we see the true state of affairs existing in the Party. When I stood up to speak about the Communists, they would hit back at me right and left. But now it is up to the people of Singapore to see whether there are any Communists within the Party. If indeed there are Communists in the People's Action Party, why is it that the Minister for Home Affairs allows these people to go free without detaining them? Why do they harbour Communists? Why do they give them salaries of $1,100 a month? Why should these people be harboured if they know that they are Communists? Why should they not arrest them and send them to Pulau Senang, or wherever it may be? The stand of the Alliance is anti-Communist. We are indeed surprised that these matters exist within the P.A.P. I really feel that if this is so, then the aims of the P.A.P. to carry out its policies and its ideology will not be achieved. Mr Speaker, when the Tunku wanted to create a Greater Malaysia or a Happy Malaysia, there arose not only from among the P.A.P. but also from among the Opposition support that the Internal Security Council should be abolished. I cannot give a guarantee, and I dare not give such a guarantee, to anyone that if the Internal Security Council is abolished from the Constitution of Singapore - perhaps you yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, will see - I do not know what will happen. If there is no internal Security Council, it would mean that the troops of the British and the Federation of Malaya cannot take a great deal of interest in the internal affairs of the State. If it is the belief of the people within the People's Action Party that we do not require British forces, that we do not require the forces of the Federation to help safeguard our security, if the Internal Security Council is abolished, then I believe, Mr Speaker. A.R.T.I.S. in its biggest form and its worst form will come into being and we cannot fight them. If there is no internal Security Council, it means that the Communists will have things their own way. Then I fear there will be bloodshed. This is totally undesirable in the State of Singapore. So. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope, and I particularly address my hope to them, that the Ministers will assume the responsibility to overcome their domestic difficulties without calling upon us to help then,. By all means, wipe out all the people within their ranks who are undesirable so that Singapore will become prosperous and peaceful.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has clarified his intention of a merger with the Federation with special emphasis on education and labour policies. But I can say that such a policy will not easily be agreed to. I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development that if the mosquito net is ridden with bed-bugs, then let the Opposition Members not be asked to help them clear these pests without their being besmirched by the blood of the bed-bugs.

00.45 am.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with sadness that in two years this is the first time I have failed in my duty as a whip, but that is not within my power. It is easy to whip when you have only the Front-bench and the Back-bench. But it is very difficult to use your whip when there is the Front-bench, the Back-bench and also the stab-in-the-back Back-benchers. I have been instructed by the Leader of the House that tonight's debate will be a free-for-all. Each one votes according to his conscience. So the whip is withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention to say anything tonight, had it not been for the fact that some of our friends were trying to accuse the leaders of trying to bribe us, even to the extent of saying bribing with money, to stay in the government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health talked of parliamentary democracy, but I would have thought that, according to the rules of parliamentary democracy, anyone who disagrees with Government policy or with Government leadership should have the decency to speak opposite us. They should have crossed the Floor before they attacked the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs talked of party discipline. He said that the P.A.P. was the best organised and the best disciplined Party. That was no doubt a fact, until the statement issued by the eight Assemblymen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my duty to draw your attention to the fact that some months ago, the Member for Pasir Panjang wrote an article in a magazine without consulting the Party Central Executive Committee saying that we should fight for complete internal self-government in our next negotiations with London. After that, as a Whip, I told him that he should have consulted the Party before deciding policy for the Party. Later on, the Member for Thomson also issued a statement with other trade unionists attacking the Party.

We had an Assemblymen's meeting before Anson and we reached a decision by secret ballot that no statement should be issued by any Assemblyman to the Press on matters of policy. So if there is anyone who is fit to talk of party discipline, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs should be the last.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Member for Toa Payoh are members of a Committee of Review on party and government work. We have to admit that we realised that we had to rectify many of our mistakes both in government and in party organisation after the Hong Lim by-election, and we formed this Committee of Review to look into the mistakes and to make the necessary rectifications. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs is Joint Secretary with myself in this Committee of Review. He knows full well that we have received memoranda from all the Branches with good recommendations about intra-party democracy and about rectifying our mistakes in many affairs. In fact, an interim report has been prepared for adoption by a full Assemblymen's meeting. If that is not intra-party democracy, then I do not know what intra-party democracy means.

Why could they not wait for another 48 hours to issue the statement? Why did they talk of intra-party democracy when we were fighting the battle in Anson? Why did they not raise the question of intra-party democracy then? Why did they not support the Member for Hong Lim when he raised the question of intra-party democracy during the Hong Lim by-election? If they know and if they were convinced that there was no intra-party democracy, they should have crossed the Floor with the Member for Hong Lim. Instead, they spoke solidly behind us during the by-election. They said how good the Party was. For two years we have never heard a word about intra-party democracy in this House. The statement about intra-party democracy came only after our Chairman had announced our acceptance in principle of a merger. That was in the Hokkien Huay Kuan.

I remember the Member for Hong Lim also raised the question of political detainees in this House. I cannot remember any of our Back-benchers having spoken on that motion. There is a Chinese proverb that when the tree falls, all the monkeys run away.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: So they are monkeys!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: I think it was a big mistake on the part of some of our leaders to say that we were going to resign if we were defeated in Hong Lim. That shook many of our chaps. They thought the ship was sinking.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The rats started to run!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: They try to desert the ship, but still cling with one hand in case it does not sink. It is not sinking, and I assure you that, as a loyal member of the Party, I will sink with the ship when it does sink.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: If it is sinking, what can you do?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: The Member for Choa Chu Kang said that we did not invite the eight Assemblymen to attend a meeting to discuss the Prime Minister's resignation. What I would like to know is whether the eight Assemblymen had invited us to attend their midnight meeting of conspiracy.

An hon. Member: Shame!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: I come to the Member for Toa Payoh who has accused our leaders of trying to bribe with money to keep them in power and to keep us together with them so that they can be in power. It is a great insult to the integrity of all of us who still stick to the Party. I think they should know by now that the P.A.P. does not believe in bribing anyone. Perhaps they had been persuaded to desert the ship with some good promises.

The Member for Cairnhill said that his Party was ready for a general election any time, anywhere. I would have thought that he had learnt a lesson in the Anson by-election.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Learn your lesson first!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Up till now, I have not heard any of our friends answering the statement made by the Prime Minister. I would have thought that many of our party affairs could have been discussed in our Party conference after this motion is taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you have heard the speeches made by our so-called friends. These reveal that there is, in fact, an attempt to capture the Party and to overthrow the Government. If they are really honest and if they are really dissatisfied with the Government, I think they should vote against this motion.

00.58 a.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, it hurts me more than it angers me to see a complete degeneration among our leaders. Sir, I have never expected that these leaders of mine and my comrades in the Party would, within such a short period, degenerate to this level to twist and turn and distort facts.

Sir, the motion before the House is apparently a very simple one. It seeks the confidence of this House in the Government. But the intention behind the motion and its implications are not clear, It is our duty as elected representatives of the people to remember now more than ever before that the interests of the people are paramount and not those of individual political leaders who have pawned their principles in desperation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our responsibility to discuss dispassionately the motion and put the underlying issues in the proper perspective so that the people may correctly judge them. We must expose any plot to confuse and mislead the people. Sir, there are two basic questions we must answer honestly.

1. For whom is the confidence vote sought; and

2. For what purpose is it sought?

The Government referred to in the motion technically means the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, who is the Secretary-General and the leader of the People's Action Party. All the Ministers are in the Central Executive Committee of the Party and they constitute a dominant majority. For all practical purposes, therefore, the P.A.P. Cabinet means the leadership of the P.A.P. In other words, Sir, today in this House, a vote of confidence is asked for the leadership of the P.A.P. That is the basic position that we must make clear.

The Prime Minister, Sir, in his speech has brought out three points which I consider to be major. He said, one, the six trade unionists and the eight Assemblymen oppose merger; two, there is a Communist move to capture the Party and to capture the Government; and three, the overriding smear that these people termed Communists are actually friends of the British.

Sir, I think it is too silly and absurd a remark to make, that these people who are called Communists are also colonial stooges, and therefore it does not warrant any serious consideration. I do not see how the Prime Minister seeks to make it look congruous by saying, on one side, these are Communist front men and on the other side they are friends of the British.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): You have said it.

Mr Bani: But to understand the behaviour of the P.A.P. leadership, it is necessary to be aware of the situation in which they find themselves. Today, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership find themselves, one, internally, with a complete loss of confidence of the majority in the Party, and two, externally, completely alienated from the working class and the middle class and almost all strata of society. Sir, an awareness of this failure of the leadership to command the support of the people and the comrades in the Party has caused a great sense of desperation, and desperate men are now preparing to act in desperate ways.

Sir, the motion before the House is a preparation for a purge. Once the sham confidence is obtained, it is possible that some people will be arrested in the hope of provoking the workers, which, in turn, they hope, will provide an excuse for a complete clean-up. Sir, it is clear that the Communist smear and the anti-merger smear are but parts of a plot to prepare anti-democratic and oppressive measures. The transparency of this smear is obvious, its objective of preparing the way for a purge is clear.

Sir, we are not unused to these smears. It is not the first time that people like Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan, S. Woodhull and the rest in the unions have been called Communists. I think the people are aware how the previous Government, under the leadership of the Member for Cairnhill, called even our present Prime Minister a Communist. Smears are easy to be created. The calling of names can be done quite easily, but this does not resolve the problems.

The question of the anti-merger smear. Sir, the six trade unionists have issued up to date but four statements. There is not one single word, one single phrase, or one single sentence which says we oppose merger. I shall be much obliged, Sir, if the Prime Minister can quote any part of their statements or any part of any one of their statements, or for that matter, any speech made by any one of us which contains a phrase or a sentence opposing merger. The big lie is that we have made minimum constitutional demands for 1963.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not quite certain whether I have heard the word "lie" being used with reference to a Member of the Assembly. If the word "lie" has been so used, it must be withdrawn.

Mr Bani: I used that word, but I do not think it was used with reference to any of the Members here, unless any Member constitutes it to be a reference to him.

I said the big lie is that we have made minimum constitutional demands for 1963 and have called for-

Mr Speaker: Order. My understanding of that remark was that it had reference to the Prime Minister's speech. If it did not have any reference to the Prime Minister's speech, then, of course, it is in order. But will the Member assure me that it had no reference to the Prime Minister's speech?

Mr Bani: I withdraw the word lie", Sir, I continue and further, that we have called for anti-colonial measures in order to block merger. Sir, our position on this is clear and simple. 1963 is a concrete obligation insofar as constitutional talks go. It could be superseded by merger, but surely vague talk of merger cannot be regarded as superseding the obligations of 1963. Therefore, Sir, we have taken up positions for 1963 while keeping an open mind on merger and confederation. On the question of merger, we state categorically that we do not oppose merger, merger in the sense it is a full-fledged merger, in the sense that Singapore will become an additional State in the Federation of Malaya. Insofar as confederation is concerned, in principle, it is acceptable but it is premature to talk about it now because nobody knows the details. The P.A.P. leadership on 9th June in the Hokkien Huay Kuan made a statement to the effect that we completely support the Tunku's Mighty Malaysia plan. It was the Prime Minister who said, "I support a hundred per cent the Mighty Malaysia plan." Unfortunately, at the moment, they say, "We welcome it in principle." We have no quarrel with anybody who say they welcome the confederation plan in principle. There is no use talking of details now because nobody knows the details. Therefore, Sir, I repeat here that any talk that the six unionists or the dissident Members of the Assembly are people who oppose merger is a basic distortion of facts.

Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the four anti-colonial measures demanded by the six trade unionists and endorsed by the eight Assemblymen were inconsistent with the objects of the P.A.P. Sir, I believe he does not have a mandate to say this, because I am quite prepared to take him on - or for that matter, any other Minister or Party official who says that the four anti-colonial measures recommended are not consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.

Sir, we subscribe without qualification to the objects of the P.A.P. as contained in clause 2 of the Party Constitution. Let not the people be misled by further smears. The four demands: one, the release of detainees - I ask the leadership of the P.A.P. whether it is consistent with the objects of the P.A.P. to release the detainees; two, the unification of the trade union movement - is it or is it not consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.; three, the granting of citizenship rights to genuine anti-colonialists - is it or is it not consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.; and four, the request to allow freedom of the Press, freedom of association and assembly - is that consistent with the objects of the P.A.P.? In this connection, I wish to elaborate on one point freedom of assembly. Sir, there was a time in Singapore - although that time was perhaps worse than it is now when - nevertheless trade unions could hold general meetings in places like the Badminton Hall, the Victoria Memorial Hall without a police permit so long as the organisation was a registered one. If the meeting was called for the attendance of its members, no permit was necessary. But today, a permit is necessary to hold a meeting. Why? Sir, I can quote examples of this. We have quoted examples of this on numerous occasions. It is not my intention to take any more of your time. Sir, but if and when further examples are necessary, we can list them down.

Sir, everybody knows now that not all is well with the P.A.P. The Government Benches are divided. The Party is faced with a serious crisis. Instead of sorting out the internal differences first, the leadership has come here. This is a blatant attempt by the leadership to bring internal party differences to let the Assembly decide. This is an attempt to make a decision of this House binding on the Party. Sir, this is an attempt to seek the support of the Opposition the reactionary Right, and the communal groups to carry on the fight against those loyal Party members who are denouncing their leadership.

In this connection, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said that those of us who talked of intra-party democracy went to the extent of releasing a letter to the Press before the by-election. Sir, I do not doubt the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs to read the letter and the covering statement and to understand the reasons given for the release. A letter is sent by eight Assemblymen, dated one Sunday. On Monday morning, the Chairman of the Party received that letter. The letter says, "Please open a 51-Branch meeting to discuss the situation arising out of the six unionists' statement, to discuss merger, and to discuss intra-party democracy." On Monday night, Mr C. V. Devan Nair went to the University of Malaya to attend a forum, and committed the Party on the detainees' issue and on other issues raised in the letter. On Tuesday, we received a letter from the Chairman saying, "We will call a meeting at a future suitable date." I think it was on a Tuesday night at an Anson by-election rally that Mr Devan Nair again talked of the matters we had raised in the letter. Sir, I believe any fool ought to know that we had to come out with a letter publicly stating our position clearly to the people. We did not want to publish this letter. If it had been our intention to publish this letter in the Press, we could have done it in the first place. We said. "No, it is a confidential letter. Discuss." We got a reply saying, "Yes. We will discuss." In the meantime, the leadership committed the whole Party.

Sir, there is no extremely grave situation today in Singapore. The leadership of the P.A.P. is facing a grave situation inside the Party. But surely the P.A.P. leadership does not constitute Singapore. We say we have no confidence in the leadership of the Ministers, i.e., the leadership of the Party. The Party rank and file have no confidence in the leadership. The leadership have abandoned their principles and deviated to the Right. This is a question that should be discussed inside the Party. On the one hand, Sir, the rank and file have been denied the right to discuss the conduct of the leadership, and on the other, attempts are made to force us to express confidence in the leadership in this House. By any standards, Sir, this is base political trickery.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now an open secret that the sincerity of the Party leaders is questioned within the Party. The Party Branches have no confidence in the leadership, and the leadership does not reflect the views of the majority in the Party. These are facts. Let the leadership deny this. Let the leadership have the courage to call a 51-Branch meeting. Sir, the leadership of the P.A.P. is responsible only to the Party. With all due respect, Sir, to the integrity of this House, I must say that the leadership of the Party cannot be tried here. Let all those non-P.A.P. members here not imagine themselves to be the functionaries of the P.A.P. This House is not a branch office of the P.A.P. Neither is it the P.A.P. headquarters and I am sure, Sir, your respected and honourable self will be unwilling to play the role of a P.A.P. Chairman.

The call made by the eight Assembly Members for a conference of the Central Executive Committee and the 51-Branch Executives has still not been answered by the leadership. This call is being repeated practically by all the Branches. The rank and file demand a conference. The cry for intra-party democracy is echoed by the majority in the Party. Yet the leadership has seen fit to ignore what is just and moral, but has come here to ask the Opposition to give it a vote of confidence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Members opposite are not the P.A.P. They are not card-carrying members of the P.A.P. They do not have the moral authority to express confidence or otherwise in the leadership of a political Party which is faced with a domestic crisis. Sir, the fight is not between what are termed the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. The fight is one of democracy in the Party set-up. The struggle within the Party, Sir, is one between those loyal to the ideals of the Party and the leadership which has fundamentally deviated from this. It is a fight between those who resolutely stand on principles on which the P.A.P. was overwhelmingly elected by the people in May 1959 and the leaders of the Party who have sold out the people.

Sir, ours is an intra-party fight against the leaders who have betrayed the confidence of the people. In this connection, how does the grave situation arise? I say to the Ministers: You have done enough harm to the people. Please do not provoke their temper. The responsibility of the leadership is to seek to resolve internal party differences within the Party in a democratic manner. It is the business of the leadership to answer charges, facing them inside the Party, and not ignore those who constitute the P.A.P. and run to the reactionary forces in the Opposition - the S.P.A. and the like for a mandate to deceive the people. Why has the leadership no courage to hold democratic discussions within the Party? Why has the leadership not sought to resolve the differences inside the Party? Why has the leadership not convened a meeting of the 51 Branches?

Sir, immediately after the Hong Lim by-election, the Party was faced with a major crisis created by the leadership - the Government wanted to resign. This question was discussed at a conference of the 51 Branches. The conference rejected the proposal to resign. Subsequently a decision was taken to rectify the mistakes of the leadership, to fight the Anson by-election, hold another similar conference after Anson to review the Anson by-election results, and to chart the future. The mistakes were not rectified. The leadership further committed the Party without a mandate. The Anson electorate rejected the Party. Yet today when a call is made for the convening of this conference, the leadership keeps silent.

Sir, there have been insinuations in some of the speeches made by the Front Benchers. All the criticisms coming now are not new to them. They have heard of them before. Sir, the cry for intra-party democracy has been inside the P.A.P. ever since the Party came into office. Everyone of us here knows this is so. They say these are all new. The call to release the detainees is not new. The call to unify the trade union movement is not new. Yet, if the leadership thinks fit to smear, we are quite prepared to sit down and listen. But we shall not degenerate to the level of calling them names. Sir, the leadership has one remarkable ability, and the one man who specialises in it is the Minister for Culture, in calling names.

Today, and a few days before, the talk has been of the Communist Left and the non-Communist Left. Two weeks ago it was the stand of the national Left, meaning, of course, the P.A.P. leadership. Sir, the national Left always reminds me of the nationalist Left in Germany and Italy, Hitler's and Mussolini's nationalist Left which had very significant Fascist tendencies. Sir, this name-calling is becoming farcical. One day we are lunatic Left. Another day we are professional political agitators. Then one day we become fireside revolutionaries, then beer-hall revolutionaries, revolutionary lambs; what others?

Mr Rajah: Never reactionary?

Mr Bani: Never reactionary. But colonialist stooges, the British colonialist stooges. Joke of all jokes! Sir, my point principally is this. When there is no confidence in the leadership within the P.A.P., why come to this House to seek a vote of confidence from the Opposition? Is it the intention of the leadership to make a decision of this House binding on the Party? The Whip, Sir, has just now said that there will be a meeting called of the 51 Branches after we have taken a decision here. They want to make this decision binding on the Party. Surely, Sir, the first thing to do is to resolve the internal differences within the party organisation, and then, if necessary, seek a vote of confidence in the legislature. A decision of the party conference is binding on the parliamentary group of the Party. But the decision of this Assembly cannot be binding on the Party. Sir, I challenge the leadership here and now to have the courage to convene a meeting of the 51 Branches and put to them a vote of confidence motion on the leadership. Sir, the leadership, having lost the confidence of the majority in the Party, and having betrayed the people, now seeks to confuse and intimidate the people. The Prime Minister talks in terms of a test of strength between the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. The six unionists are smeared as being anti-merger. The people are intimidated with talks of the "many unpleasant and awkward things the Government will have to do in order to maintain peace and order". These are but cheap smears. The people of Singapore have not forgotten similar utterances of the former Chief Minister. The people have not forgotten the ruthless actions taken by the Lim Yew Hock Government in the name of maintaining peace and order. But it is a pity, Sir, that the present leadership of the P.A.P. has forgotten the political fate of the S.P.A. and the Liberal Socialists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we who are dissatisfied and disgusted with the leadership of the Government and the Party, are forced by the manoeuvres of the leaders to take this stand today.

1.35 a.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a bit late in the day to have a lively debate.

But the rapidity with which events have moved during the last few weeks have been as breath-taking as they have been confusing. After two years of tranquillity and stability under the P.A.P. Government, we are once more plunged into an atmosphere of political crisis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that this crisis should have coincided with the re-entry into this Chamber of the Member for Anson and his re-emergence into politics after a permanent retirement is, I think, purely coincidental, and I think it only fair that he should be absolved from any blame in this respect.

I believe, Sir, that the present crisis has been brought about as a result of too many people trying to be too clever. The Prime Minister earlier in the debate outlined the forces and counter-forces responsible for the present crisis. It is a vast jig-saw puzzle. Though we have managed to fit many pieces together, that is, enough to make sense out of the strange and extraordinary events of the last few weeks, there are possibly still many pieces missing, and with luck and assiduity we hope to be able to find the other pieces - if not us, then maybe those befuddled and over-clever plotters who are now up the gum tree.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one thing is clear. Somebody is up the gum tree, and it clearly is not the P.A.P. It may be the British. It may be, as the Member for Thomson anticipated, the beer-hall revolutionaries who had hoped to manipulate the British but who in fact have been outwitted by the British. So, Sir, in the not too distant future we shall know who is up the gum tree, when sooner or later - and I think it will be sooner - anxious cries of distress come from up the branches. The beer-hall revolutionaries may have been beguiled by the British into attacking and betraying their Party and comrades in the P.A.P. in the Anson by-election in the belief that once the P.A.P. has been got rid off, or captured, the revolutionary lambs can gambol gaily with the wily British lion.

Neither I nor my colleagues know exactly what the British lion will do once the revolutionary sheep start running all over the place. It may be that the lion will, like an indulgent shepherd, allow itself to be bearded in its den for a while, but let me add that the old British lion's beard is tougher than beards recently sprouted. It may be that the wily lion may want to find out how many revolutionary lambs there are in the fold before its thoughts turn to more practical purposes - such as making mutton chops for lunch out of gambolling lambs.

For their information, may I give two recent news items which may or may not be of interest to them? There was a radio programme over the B.B.C. last night discussing the situation in Singapore. After outlining the possible challenge to the P.A.P., and the possible ouster of the P.A.P., the commentator gave it as his opinion that the British would not intervene in case the P.A.P. withdrew from the political arena. This may be a source of delight, I hope, to the gambolling revolutionaries.

But as against this, may I also draw attention to another report in the London Observer which says that the constitution might be suspended - which means, as far as I can see, mutton chops for lunch.

In any case, Sir, we are not interested how the sheep and the lion get on.

What we are interested in is the future of the P.A.P. Government and the aims and policies for which it stands, and more important, the establishment of an independent, democratic, non-Communist socialist Malaya. Our primary concern is with the lives and destinies of the 1,500,000 people who trusted us, and whatever happens we are not going to sell them out either to the British plotters or the beer-hall revolutionaries who have been duped by the British.

It is our intention to put to the people the whole truth so that with, their support and trust we can bring to a successful conclusion the fight for an independent, democratic, non-Communist socialist Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though we lost an election in Anson we are happy because our hands are clean. Our hands are not stained by the blood of colleagues we have betrayed. One of our Political Secretaries-and for the information of the Member for Cairnhill, who is very interested in salaries, as far as I know, that Political Secretary is still being paid a salary - at a forum in the University of Malaya sneered that a wounded P.A.P. Goliath limped out of Hong Lim to meet the sling shots of David, who, for your information, Sir, happens to be also the Member for Anson.

Yes, Sir, it is true that the P.A.P. Goliath limped out of Hong Lim. But it was not the sling shots of David that it met, but those of another Goliath that also limped out of Hong Lim - the Lim Ching Siong Goliath. That is what the Political Secretary forgot to tell those people who attended the forum at the University of Malaya. There were two Goliaths, both equally wounded, but with this difference. Though the P.A.P. Goliath was badly mauled in Hong Lim, it went to fight honourably in Anson.

But what of the Lim Ching Siong Goliath, who was also mauled and wounded? The fact that this Goliath, which fought side by side with the P.A.P., was able to be at large in Hong Lim, was due to one thing - that we, the P.A.P., never let down or disavow our friends. If we make a promise, we will keep it, whatever the merits or otherwise of that promise. We kept that promise, but the Lim Ching Siong Goliath limped out of Hong Lim ostensibly to fight side by side with the P.A.P. Goliath but, in fact, to join David to betray a comrade in Anson and in so doing reduced itself to the proportions of a dwarf. It secured a victory for David - and we are not blaming David for availing himself of the generous assistance given to him. At least it may be said of him that he came out openly as our political opponent. But not so the Lim Ching Siong Goliath. He and his friends were ready to betray the Party and the Government with which they were openly associated. Mr Lim, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull remained as Political Secretaries while openly indulging in activities calculated to bring about the defeat of the P.A.P. candidate who also happened to be the President of the T.U.C. and the S.T.C. These then are the great leaders, men of upright character. Let me say, Sir, that a friend of mine told me that even among gangsters there is some honour. When two gangsters get together to fight another gangster, as long as they fight the other gangster, they observe a minimum of honour and a certain code of ethics, one of which is that you do not stab your friend in the back until you have disposed of your common enemy. But never, even among gangsters, do you reduce yourself to the level of sticking a dagger into your own comrade when he calls out for help and thereby assisting your enemy.

In any country, Sir, whether it is socialist, Communist or capitalist, when a person disagrees with a government with which he is associated or by whom he is employed to advise and assist, it is the ordinary decent practice for him to resign from office before publicly opposing and fighting the government.

But obviously these Political Secretaries, these gentlemen, are out to establish new standards of political morality. Betrayal of the Government and Party colleagues they are associated with are presumably things to be proud of. What is even worse, Sir, is that they deluded eight of our Assemblymen into joining in the betrayal. Some of these Assemblymen came out with us for four weeks, I think, to canvass for the P.A.P. candidate in Anson. They came with us telling the voters to vote for our candidate, the P.A.P. candidate. And yet, the day before Polling Day, they came out with a letter under the pretence that they had been provoked into publishing it. If they had been provoked, they could have still waited for 24 hours. It was quite clear that what was happening was that the present Member for Anson looked like losing, and it therefore became necessary for the six trade unionists and for the dupes in the P.A.P. ranks to be mobilised to throw in their weight in open intervention in favour of our opponent in Anson. We know very well that at the last minute certain unionists were openly canvassing for votes for our opponent in Anson.

Sir, some of these Assemblymen may be thinking that it is all great fun playing at revolutionaries. But they should know what they are in for. If they are not Communists, they are going to be dupes. I suggest to them that they read what is in store for those who allow themselves unknowingly to be used as dupes. There is a book called Revolutionary Catechism which was written by a young Russian revolutionary called Sergei Nechayev. His work was greatly admired by Lenin who, though repudiating many of the tenets of the catechism, at least made some of it the basis of his strategy and tactics on how to carry out a revolution. With your permission, Sir, I will just read a few extracts. He says:

`A good revolutionary is tyrannical towards himself. The revolutionary must be tyrannical towards others. All the emotions that move human beings (things like loyalty, friendship), all the soft and enervating feelings and kinship - love, friendship, gratitude and honour - must give way to a cold and single-minded passion for revolution.'

Then he goes on to describe what to do with comrades.

`When a comrade is in danger [and it is just as well for some of our colleagues who have been duped by other men into betraying our comrades for them to remember this injunction by Nechayev] it may be necessary to determine whether he is expendable. The decision must not be arrived at on the basis of sentiment; only the eventual success of the revolution has any importance at this juncture.'

1.55 a.m.