GOVERNMENT'S POLICY TOWARDS EXPATRIATES INTERVENING IN LOCAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS (Statement by the Prime Minister)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, I apologise to the Member for Anson for having been absent from the Chamber yesterday at 2.30 p.m. but I have explained to him that my Personal Assistant was ill. There was an oversight.

Sir, the Government's policy towards expatriates intervening in local political affairs was considered and stated on the occasion when a Professor of the University of Malaya inadvertently wandered into the field of political controversy.

In the case referred to by the Member for Anson, I have received a long letter from the lawyer concerned and another from his client. The lawyer explained that the offending statement attributed to him in the Press was, in fact, a Press news item and not a statement by him. The point that non-citizens should not enter the political arena which includes trade union disputes - particularly where the Communist-controlled unions are involved - has already been made and understood.

Briefly, we have stated that Government does not approve of non-citizens interfering with local political affairs. The Government would strongly urge non-citizens who are British European expatriates to stay out of the local political arena and let none of their acts, either intentionally or otherwise, be construed as intervening in local political matters. This principle applies to a man whether he is a Professor at the University, a lawyer in the profession or merchant in commerce.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is conscious that a man in the exercise of his professional duties has often to accept instructions and to pursue a line of action which may be deemed to have political implications. Does he then consider that because the person is an expatriate he should be precluded from exercising his profession in any fields where there might be political implications?

The Prime Minister: Sir, the dividing line between being just the agent for an employer and being a participant is quite a clear one. A lawyer who issues a statement in the name of his client is only an agent and the client takes the consequences. I think the Member for Anson is aware - particularly in the case of Press statements - that no advocate and solicitor can issue statements in his personal capacity or in his firm's name, because that means, amongst other things, breaching the rules of etiquette with regard to advertising. Had this statement been attributed not to the lawyer but to the client, a completely different position would have arisen. He would have been a pure agent. But where, as in this particular case, the Press report stated that he as the lawyer had said so after he left the Ministry of Labour, obviously he did it in his capacity as the lawyer and not as the agent, then the Government drew certain inferences from it. As I have explained, he has in a very long letter elaborated on the circumstances of how the statement came to be reported and I have no intention of opening the matter unless he wishes to do so publicly.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. Sir,I would like it to be clearly understood that I am not here at his request nor have I had any communication from him. But the statement made by the Prime Minister does raise anxiety from this point of view. He said that British expatriates should not intentionally or otherwise conduct themselves in a manner which may be deemed to interfere in our local politics. I would ask whether, in fact, the Prime Minister intends that to be a statement of Government policy and that if these expatriates do inadvertently so conduct themselves that they are deemed to interfere in our local politics they are to believe that the Sword of Damocles will then fall.

The Prime Minister: As I have stated in opening my statement, the matter was carefully considered as one of Government policy in the case of the Professor of the University of Malaya and the principle was clearly enunicated - intended seriously and put across seriously

• and the line of demarcation between pursuing one's profession and one's academic freedom in the University and meddling in local affairs has been made and has been understood. From time to time, those who transgress will have to be reminded of the policy of the Government. If it is a pure and accidental transgression, surely the Government will not be unreasonable; but if it is persistently repeated, then the Government must sit up and take note of it.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Sir, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider publishing the letters to which he referred.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the letters were sent to me in my capacity as Prime Minister in the case of the employer. I am speaking now from recollection. I found them in my tray, having been opened by my Secretary. I think they were marked 'confidential', but I have no objection really to asking the employer to publish them. The one from the lawyer was marked 'personal and confidential'. He is a man whom I have known for some time at the Bar. As I have said, I have no objection to his publishing that letter and my replying to it publicly. Sir, it is not for me to receive a letter marked 'personal and confidential' and to publish it. But if either the employer or the lawyer wishes to publish it and open the subject for a public debate, then I must be prepared to allow them to do so. In fact, I would not say I welcome it, nor would I say I do not welcome it. But if they take that step, then I enter into the open controversy. But I cannot publish a letter - particularly a long one - from a lawyer whom I met, in fact, quite accidentally at the Ipoh Airport. He had come down from Cameron Highlands and in a few minutes explained to me that it was all a misunderstanding and then set out in a long letter how the misunderstanding, in his view, arose. The long and short of it is that he said that it was a news report and not a statement by him. And there the matter rests.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Sir, I wonder whether the Prime Minister means what he says. He says that non-citizens should not interfere in trade union matters of Singapore and also in local politics. He knows that there are a number of non-citizens who are very active in the trade union field. One non-citizen particularly named by him was alleged by him to be most active during the trouble with the school children.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the most important principle in politics is basic realism. The person that the Member for Cairnhill has referred to but not named, I think, is Mr Fong Swee Suan. We have withheld his citizenship papers for reasons which I think are well known to Mr Fong Swee Suan, and I do not intend to publish them unless he insists on it. The case of Mr Fong Swee Suan and that of the lawyer concerned are a bit different. One is a British European expatriate who dropped into Singapore in the 1950's and wanted to make a living. He is staying here just to make a living. The other one is a person who came here from the Federation of Malaya, went to the Chinese High School and has since been somewhat active in Singapore. He has been involved in many of the events which had interested both the Member for Cairnhill when he was the Chief Minister and I since I became Prime Minister.

But I would say that, on principle, I fully agree that it is inadvisable for any non-citizen to be involved in political matters. It is not for me to say how circumstances may develop in which it would be very unwise for non-citizens to be so involved, be they expatriates of European, Indian or Ceylonese origin, or even of other origin nearer home, but perhaps obviously they feel that the time has not yet come and it is really left to future events to see when the time will come.

Mr David Marshall: I have another question, Sir. Is the Prime Minister not aware that the President of the Chamber of Commerce, which arrogates to itself the name "Singapore Chamber", has stated publicly that he supports the Government on the merger issue? Has he taken this matter up with the President?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I cannot tell the Member for Anson how deeply the Government feels every time a European opens his mouth in support of the Government. On many occasions, I have not only told the Chamber of Commerce but also even higher dignitaries - people with more influence in matters of commerce, finance and other things - to stay out, whether they are for or against the Government. If they come in and they are against the Government, then we will deal with them. If they come in and they are for the Government, then they are giving a stick to the Government's opponents to deal harshly with the Government.

I am deeply indebted to the Member for Anson for bringing this point up publicly, because I would publicly like to disavow any support from any European or expatriate quarter for the Government. I say this unashamedly that those who wish us well and are non-citizens do best by keeping quiet and praying silently that the country will go on peacefully and prosperously. Those who are against the Government and open their big mouths may find a lot of unpleasant consequences.