PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE AND CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, in 1955 when the people's first elected government took office, they promised to examine exhaustively the Emergency Regulations with a view to dispensing with such powers that are no longer essential for the maintenance of law and order within the framework of normal legal procedure. As soon as we came in, Sir, we began to repeal parts of the Emergency Regulations and finally reviewed the question whether we could repeal the whole of those deservedly unpopular regulations. The Federation of Malaya sent urgent representations through its Defence Secretary and Chief of Operations urging upon us the gravity of relaxing the measures, and out of deference and because we had not fully studied with the question, Sir, we agreed to temporary measures pending further study of the issue. Those temporary measures were incorporated in what is now known as the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance wherein it was sought to give the maximum security for the citizen within the context of basic security of the country. I pointed out then, Sir, that the P.P.S.O. was more liberal - I had so thought it - than the Security of the Pakistan Act, the Preventive Detention Act of India, the Public Order Preservation Act of Burma, and the S.O.B. provisions of Indonesia, which all give powers of preventive arrest and detention in respect of those whose conduct may imminently prejudice the security and safety of the State.

The main safeguard, Sir, incorporated in these provisions of the P.P.S.O. was a tribunal of three Judges which would review all decisions of the Cabinet and could order the release of a detainee if they considered that his detention was no longer necessary for the security of the State even though it was against the Government's wishes, and such -

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member please remember that his speech is being translated? He is speaking a bit too fast.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged, Mr Speaker. It was then I said that it was with a heavy heart that I introduced a Bill which did not completely remove the existing inroads into the rule of law as I had hoped to in the early days of my government. The law that was passed was for three years, so that the Government should have to account to the Assembly before that Assembly ended its life. The Minister for Labour (then the Member for Sembawang, Che Ahmad Ibrahim) during that debate said, "These Regulations were no longer serving the purpose of saving the country from a grave political crisis, but were, in fact, a fetter on the political development of the people in this country. Trade unionists and freedom fighters were fully alive to this threat to the Malayan freedom movement and to ordinary trade union activity." The present Prime Minister, during the debate in 1955 did not deny that the law was far better than the existing Emergency Regulations and, in fact, stated in col. 723:

`It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release.'

That was said by the very man who, when he became Prime Minister, promptly removed the Judges and took away the power to order a man's release.

The Prime Minister: Point of elucidation, Sir. In the name of -

Mr Speaker: Order, it is a question of the Prime Minister, I think, being misrepresented on record.

Mr David Marshall: I am quoting from the record - col. 723 of the Hansard of the 21st of September, 1955.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister should wait until the Member has completed his speech and he can then give his explanation if the Member will not give way.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. Now, that Bill was passed without a division and I can say in all conscience that so long as I was in office no man was detained because of dislike for his political affiliations or because he was being troublesome, but genuinely because he was believed to be not merely a nuisance but a major threat in respect of potential large-scale disturbances -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have here Hansard, col. 723. I believe the Member for Anson did not give the correct quotation. May I read from col. 723 what the Prime Minister said? He said:

`Three Judges! Great play has been made of three Judges! ... One good judge is as good as three.'

That was what he said.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I believe we have the same Hansard. It is a question of a little more eyesight.

`It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release.'

If I may go on, Mr Speaker. I was saying that for us it was a question of incarcerating only those who were potential organisers of imminent widespread disorder and they never detained a moment longer than was necessary. I had sought, in fact, the report on the entire administration of this Ordinance. My successor, the present Member for Cairnhill, utilised the provisions of the P.P.S.O. with extraordinary width and incarcerated amongst others no less an eminent person than Dr Chuang Chu Lin, now the Vice-Chancellor of the Nanyang University -

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose ---

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No. Point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I think it might interest the ex-Chief Minister to know that Dr Chuang Chu Lin was not detained under the P.P.S.O. but under the Banishment Ordinance.

Mr David Marshall: Well, Sir, in that case my memory serves me wrong, but I was quite convinced that he was detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and I shall be happy to check that perhaps and refer it back, Mr Speaker. The curious thing is that this gentleman was never, in fact, banished. But the question is this: I am trying to show you the way things have gone. When the P.A.P. took office there were 61 persons detained by the Member for Cairnhill's Government, and the P.A.P. itself in the two and a half years it has been in office has detained 30 persons in all. On 14th October, 1959, Sir, an amendment to the P.P.S.O. was introduced by the Prime Minister of the present P.A.P. Government on a Certificate of Urgency. It was passed on the same day. The amendment abolished the tribunal of three Judges and the power of the tribunal to make orders contrary to the wishes of the Government if it considered that there were inadequate reasons for further detention. This Government abolished the very safeguard which was placed by the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition at the time it was passed. But when he became Prime Minister, in his own words he substituted for this provision of three Judges - and these are his words in Hansard, 14th October, 1959:

`... Substitutes in its place the original position obtaining under the Emergency laws, that is, an advisory committee.',

and to the credit of the Opposition they voted against that amendment. The excuse, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that the Judges were unhappy about their duties. I say this to you, Mr Speaker -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of order, Sir. When the Member for Anson quoted the Prime Minister in col. 668 of Hansard, col. 668 gives the speech of the Chief Secretary.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister is getting a bit frivolous now. He has not got the right quotation from the right volume.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, the excuse made by the Prime Minister was that the Judges were unhappy at the discharge of their duties. These Judges who still -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. I do not want to complain of a breach of privilege, but I have been grossly misrepresented. I read here a letter from the then Acting Chief Justice saying he does not want anything to do with the P.P.S.O. under the then provisions. I am saying that I am now being alleged to have misrepresented the then Acting Chief Justice.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, he says he read a letter. Col. 668 - have you got it, Mr Speaker, Sir - of the Hansard of the 14th October, 1959? The Hansard has grossly misrepresented the Prime Minister. Paragraph 3:

`First, clause 5 of the Bill repeals section 5 of the present Ordinance which provides for an Appeal Tribunal consisting of three judges, and substitutes in its place the original position obtaining under the Emergency laws, that is, an advisory committee.

In September this year, I had discussions with the present Chief Justice [of the letter] about the functions of the judiciary under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which is due to lapse later this month.'

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the letter is contained in col. 669.

Mr David Marshall: May I read it, Mr Speaker, Sir?

`"My brother judges and I are all of the opinion that it is extremely undesirable for members of the judiciary to constitute the Appeal Tribunal...".'

They are still members of the Appeal Tribunal. A Judge is still chairman of the Appeal Tribunal. I read on:

`"... we think it was a mistake to have caused the judiciary to be associated with the work of the tribunal.".' They are still associated with the work of the tribunal. I will read on:

"However, in view of the reasons for extension of the life of the Ordinance set out in your letter and more particularly in view of your assurance that the judiciary will not be called upon to do this work for more than one further year, [October 1959] the judges who constitute the tribunal have agreed with great reluctance to continue to serve as members...".

Sir, they are still Judges of the High Court, but instead of giving them the dignity of being able to release a detainee, that power has been taken away from them by this Government; not that they did not want to shoulder that responsibility but that they did not want to associate with the tribunal. However, they were compelled to be associated and they could still discharge that function. But the Government was not happy that they should have the power to discharge and to release detainees whom the Government might wish to detain. In fact, Sir, you will remember the evasive reply of the Minister for Home Affairs when I asked him whether there was any occasion on which he had rejected the advice of the Appeal Tribunal. And he said, "I cannot remember." "I cannot remember."

Sir, on 20th July this year the Deputy Prime Minister in a very emotional moment solemnly informed this House that there were at the time 18 persons still under detention who had been detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and whom it was the desire of the P.A.P. Government as long ago as the 12th August, 1959, to release. In fact, he tabled a secret document in which he said -

The Prime Minister: That they were Communists.

Mr David Marshall: ---

"once Lim Ching Siong is released, it makes very little difference from the point of view of subversion whether the remaining 40-odd detainees are released or not, because they cannot materially affect the security position."

The Prime Minister: Quite right.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, what is rather interesting is the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister on the 20th July that the Government would release these detainees from time to time in accordance with the original proposals of the Singapore Government. Yet the Minister for Home Affairs, in his reply to my question which was tabled in this House on 16th November, stated that at that date, the 16th of November, two months ago, there were still these 18 detained and that 4 of the 30 persons detained by the present Government were still under detention.

Mr Speaker, on the same date, the Minister for Home Affairs, in replying to my question asking whether he would publish a report on the working of the P.P.S.O. since its inception, sneeringly said that since I was its framer and creator I should know how it worked. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know what it was intended for, but I do not know how it has been used. That information I know will be strenuously denied us by this as well as by the previous Government.

Mr Speaker, it is not so much the persons who are detained under the P.P.S.O. that we are concerned with as the power of intimidation that it has given this Government over the people of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: Come, come!

Mr David Marshall: It is unfortunately true, Mr Speaker, that it is not necessary to carry out this threat in this country. It is enough that you should have the power to make that threat. They discovered that by detaining two silly journalists - so-called Right-wing subversionists - they could intimidate the-entire Press and subjugate it in terror. They have utilised this P.P.S.O. with Machiavellian ingenuity. [Interruption] Ah, the Minister for Culture feels the banb. Mr Speaker, it is to be noted furthermore that that Ordinance, which was intended for three years, has been extended to nine years. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance was passed by the Government of the Member for Cairnhill, allegedly to meet the threat of gangsters - not political gangsters. I mean secret societies. I have reason to believe that it has been used in other than secret society cases. In any event, Mr Speaker, it is a radical departure from the rule of law in that it authorises the imprisonment of persons for successive periods of two years without trial at the will of the Government with the concurrence of the State Advocate-General.

Mr Speaker, it is the duty of Members of this House - all Members and not only the Opposition - to seek to safeguard the liberty of the people who have elected them and to scrutinise jealously every infringement of normal legal rights. The purpose of this motion is to urge upon all Members of this House to recognise that we have in our midst two major breaches in the rule of law, that they have been in operation for a considerable period of time and that they have not been adequately examined. There have been no reports on them. I say that we in this Assembly and the people of Singapore are entitled to have from the Government a report on its working from its inception. I for one, who was responsible for its creation and in part had administered it, have no fear of any disclosures that could be made. I say that there should be clearly established reasons and justification for the continuance of the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in the considerably improved situation in Singapore today. I say we are entitled to this information.

8.20 p.m.

The Prime Minister: From time to time it is my unpleasant duty to say how wrong we have been. There was a time when I felt that whatever the short-comings of the Member for Anson, here was one, albeit innocently and naively, who believed in democratic rights and freedom on very basic principles. But I am convinced, after listening to him for the last twenty minutes - I was not here for the first two minutes - that that is not the position. He was entrusted with the survival of the State, and when he was entrusted with the survival of the State, he made no bones about his responsibility and of the necessity to have these laws. He quoted India and Pakistan with great eloquence to demonstrate to the then semi-elected Assembly how independent countries had to protect their integrity and survival from the ruthless machinations of those whom he hated from the very bottom of his belly.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Plague-carrying rats.

The Prime Minister: Plague-carrying rats whom he hated and so on. And now I hear from him not in the same voice, but in a different one. He is now the champion, albeit in a back-handed way - how nice it would be to have a chap like the Member for Anson as Prime Minister - he believes them all. We should deal with them gently, and only detain them for short periods. I say to him that in the art of brinkmanship, there are two qualities required. First a fine judgment of just how far one wants to go, and that depends on what one is fighting for: and second, the ability, when the time requires, to stand up and fight. And I say, when we took office, we had calculated all the odds involved and I stand by every word of that document to which he has referred. Once we released Mr Lim Ching Siong, it is utterly irrelevant and trivial to hold up the balance of these people whom from time to time we shall release till the last of them are out. I say the Barisan Sosialis and their chief performers understand.

This is all a purely academic argument. It is a waste of time and we want to get it out of the way. The Member for Anson - I say from my information, knowledge and belief - understands full well that without the P.P.S.O. and the judicial exercise of those powers on the right target, there is not the slightest hope of democracy surviving. He himself has admitted it. You do not have to use any powers, says he. All you have to do is to threaten, and it is not the Government who does the threatening. It is the chaps who run the underground and say, "I will fix you - and I will fix you in a quiet corner - not in accordance with the law, but in accordance with the gun." And they get obedience. We have seen in this very Chamber how chaps have melted away. They believed in democracy. But when the heat was put on, they melted away: mind you, believing that the other side was going to win. But that is another matter. That is the tragedy that we are faced with, that few people have sufficient belief in democracy to stand up and fight for it and die for it. The tragedy I was touched by just now was that once I used to list the persons who would fight and die for democracy. I am afraid, after listening to the Member for Anson just now, I will have to scratch him from the list. He is no more. He may have started, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a naive well-meaning liberal. By the time he was finished with 15 or 16 months as Chief Minister in one of the most turbulent periods of Singapore's history since 1945, he knew what this was all about. He told me what it was all about. I think he ought to do me at least this one act of justice, that I have never at any time denied any of the truths he tittered in this Assembly, truths which I knew to be true. But the Member for Anson locked up Mr Fong Swee Suan. And he is an evil-doer. I never denied it. We pleaded and appealed to his better nature. It was my duty as Secretary-General of the Party. I do not know whether it was my plea or the ferocious utterances of the supporters of the Bus Workers' Union that persuaded the Member for Anson to release Mr Fong Swee Suan. I like to believe that it was my gentle plea for mercy that made act in that way.

But when all the sweet talk about liberty and the rights of men is over, I say there is a right of self defence, and the Members on the Opposition Benches, the Barisan Sosialis, understand that. They know it full well. In the last resort, what worries me is not that there will be three Judges or one Judge who will review these matters. Does it really matter? Any government that abuses the P.P.S.O. to use it against non-Communists destroys the efficacy of the P.P.S.O. The last Government knew it. The Federation Government is fully alive to it. The Tunku says he is very selective and judicious. Because to make it an effective instrument, you must be judicious. Then people know. Ah, quite right.

Mr David Marshall: What about reporters?

The Prime Minister: Reporters? We said quite rightly that they were not Communists. I thought we had dealt with it under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. We said so. When they were not Communists, we named them. A.R.T.I.S. - they were not Communists - we named them. But I say or him and the former man entrusted with power deliberately to cast a cloud over it, to say that the democratic liberal line is quite innocent leaves me completely cynical. If you remove these powers, he knows as well as everybody else that he will not be going before a Judge and arguing these things out: in a very short while you will be lynching chaps in Orchard Circus and settling matters there. He cannot deny that. He knows it. What worries me is this, that there will be enough stupid chaps in Singapore and elsewhere in Malaya and in Malaysia who will make it increasingly difficult for us to maintain the democratic tradition because they play the undemocratic game. That is the tragedy. I would tell the Member for Nee Soon particularly - and I have told him this long before these serious errors of calculations were made - that in the last resort, if the Communists use methods of intimidation, force and pressure, they cannot expect a democratic government to sit back and allow itself to be eaten away; and the more the methods of pressure and intimidation, the Central Government will, albeit reluctantly, have to act with firmness, regret and effectiveness. But I think the operative word is "effectiveness". Otherwise we will not be here. There will not be pensions to be paid to civil servants.

Mr Rajah: No Commissions!

The Prime Minister: There will not be Commissioners either. Thank you very much for reminding me.

An hon. Member: The People's Court.

The Prime Minister: Things are settled in an expeditious way, as they are, in several parts of the world. But one last parting word to the former Chief Minister of Singapore. I am personally grateful to him because he opened Pandora's Box. I was there watching. He opened one box after the other and a cobra popped out at the end. His successor put the cobra back. We drew out the fangs of the cobra. It is now running around and I do not know when it is going to be put back, but it is without fangs now. Before it grows new fangs, I am pretty sure that the hopes, freedom and liberty of the people of Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia will be guaranteed.

The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half-past Eight o'clock p.m.) having arrived, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.