WEST IRIAN

Order read for resumption of debate on Question (18th January, 1962),

"That this House, taking cognizance of the heroic struggle of the Indonesian people to liberate Irian Barat from colonial rule, expresses admiration for the determination and courage of the Indonesian people and expresses full sympathy with their hopes and aspirations, and calls upon the people of Singapore to give their wholehearted support to our neighbours and friends, the people of Indonesia, in their just and legitimate struggle against colonial domination.". - (Dr Lee Siew Choh).

Question again proposed.

3.01 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, before the adjournment last Friday, I spoke about the positiveness of the Government's attitude in its support of the Indonesian people's struggle to wrest West Irian from the Dutch. Before that, Mr Speaker, I was greatly impressed by the appeal of the Member for Thomson which asked Members of this Assembly, especially the Government, to debate seriously the motion before the House. He accused the Government of allegedly sneering or ridiculing this motion. The Member also suggested that the Government is belittling the struggle of the Indonesian people. I strongly refute this allegation. We, the Government, have constantly given our wholehearted support to their struggle. We view with grave concern the events taking place in the neighbouring country of Indonesia. We are fully conscious of the fact that developments in Indonesia have repercussions or reactions in our country. For that reason, we, the Government, have not the slightest intention to disregard this motion or not to give the respect that it deserves. However, our actual stand on this matter has been twisted by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Thomson has accused us of having insulted and affronted the Indonesian people in their struggle to eradicate colonialism from West Irian.

Mr Speaker, we view this accusation with concern because the object of the speeches made by the Barisan Sosialis is to damage the good relationship between the Government of Indonesia and the Government of Singapore. This good relationship already existed, more particularly so during the time of the present Government. He also charged that the Government had intimidated the people who put up placards or posters in support of the Indonesian struggle against Dutch colonialism. But, Mr Speaker, in addition to what has already been said by my colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan, about the work of putting up posters late at night, it is also a fact that they were put up in great numbers bearing the symbol of the Barisan Sosialis. So they were putting up these posters in order to make known the Barisan Sosialis to the public.

Mr Speaker, our stand wholeheartedly in support of the struggle of the Indonesian people is not false. It is positive. We support the struggle in all consciousness. We have no ulterior motive. However, what we are surprised at, Mr Speaker, are the tactics and the attitude of the mover of this motion. His attitude, like the proverbial Malay saying, is just like a cock crowing. This means that people who only talk and find fault merely make empty noises, and they fail to realise their own mistakes. Mr Speaker, this attitude of the Barisan Sosialis astounds us. When we ridicule them, we do not direct it at Indonesia. We direct our ridicule or insult at the Members of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, let us recollect some of the past events and of the people who live in the Malay Archipelago, or Temasek. Temasek is an old name for Singapore. It has been willed by God that people who are sincere and honest should have been oppressed by the Western colonialists who, because of their lust and greed, succeeded in dividing the people. The Western colonialists shared the spoils of the Malay Archipelago amongst the Dutch, the British and the Americans. Thus the Malay Archipelago was divided into three spheres until the end of the Second World War. Mr Speaker, God has also willed that the people should rise in order to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism. The Indonesian people woke up. They declared their independence in spite of the sacrifices which they had to make to achieve their independence. Finally, the independence of the Indonesian people was recognised by the world, including the Dutch. It was, however, decided that the problem of West Irian should be resolved through negotiations. American colonialism in the Philippines was uneasy. Finally, the Americans also gave independence to the Filipinos. But American colonialism preferred to make an orderly retreat to being forced to retreat. Likewise, British colonialism had no alternative but to give independence to the Malayan nationalists. They did it before they were ejected forcibly. For that reason, Mr Speaker, it is our duty, as one nation in the Malay Archipelago, to be united in our efforts to wipe out colonialism. Since the Philippines has thrown away the yoke of colonialism and the Indonesian people have broken away from colonialism, we will not only wipe out British colonialism here but will also wipe out colonialism in the Borneo territories.

Mr Speaker, the era of colonialism in Asia will definitely end. British colonialism is on its way out. The Dutch colonialists are adopting a stone-headed attitude. They forget Asian nationalism. They are stubborn in wanting to hold on to West Irian. For that reason, Mr Speaker, we give them this warning. Although the cow is a weak animal, we get milk from it. It is also used to pull carts. Although it may not have horns, one day it will rise and use all its energies to free itself. This is the spirit and the determination of the people of the Malay Archipelago in South-East Asia.

Mr Speaker, the people of Malaya, especially in Malacca, were under the rule of the Dutch. I still remember, when I was in school, a history book entitled "Hikayat Abdullah". It was related in this book how tyrannical the Dutch were towards her subject people. The Dutch colonialists will pay heavily for this tyrannical attitude. Their inhuman action took the form of torturing and burying people alive. Some were tied and beaten to death. Some were hung to death. There were many other inhuman atrocities committed by the Dutch. This is an excerpt from history to show the atrocities of Dutch colonialism, especially in Malacca. The same atrocities were committed in Indonesia. For instance, the name of Westerling will remain in our memory, for he killed thousands of innocent people in the Island of Celebes. Therefore, when we talk about colonialism in whatever form it is, what is fresh in our mind are the atrocities which the colonialists committed on their subject peoples. For this reason, if there are among us those who are satisfied or who are complacent with the power given to us by the colonial powers, they are only the puppets of the colonial power. Only stooges are prepared to tolerate such a state of affairs. This clearly shows the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis when they moved this motion of merger and Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis opposed merger and Malaysia. I think Mr Speaker himself knows the position as well as I do.

Mr Speaker, we recollect, since the West Irian issue could not be resolved through negotiations at the conference table, how the Dutch then tried to offer self-government to West Irian by changing the name of West Irian to Papua, and suggesting a flag for Papua, thereby using the Papuans as their stooges or puppets to support their action. It would appear, in the words of the Minister for Culture, that if there were a Barisan Sosialis in West Irian, they would accept the Dutch plan, i.e., to form a self-government under the auspices of the colonial Dutch. This is clear from their stand that there should be complete self-government for Singapore, rather than that Singapore should merge with the Federation. Is this the type of people who wish to support the struggle of the Indonesian people for the return of West Irian to the Indonesian Government? Mr Speaker, if we support the struggle of the Indonesian people, it is not because our support is superfluous, or because we are anti-colonialists, or to gain publicity and make political capital out of this in order to get political support. People who at all times say, "I love you," are not genuine in their love. It is false and has a sinister motive. Such people make only empty promises. They produce only noises, but no results. In order to achieve peace and happiness, we say frankly and openly that our stand is that we love peace and justice. So we warn the Dutch to resolve this dispute peacefully, surrender West Irian to the Indonesian people, and leave Irian Barat in an orderly manner. All this is for the sake of world peace and harmony.

We are wholeheartedly behind the people of Indonesia. The spirit and determination of the Indonesian people are the same as ours. We support wholeheartedly and we give our sympathy to the struggle of the Indonesian people. Our support is behind the Indonesian people who were once the subject people of the Dutch, because we are against colonialism in any kind or form. This anti-colonial attitude is embedded in our soul and in the people of Asia. For that reason, Mr Speaker, we are making our appeal in the interest of peace. If we hit a snake, we are going to make sure it is dead and that the stick which we use to hit it is undamaged. As long as there is hope for negotiations, we must make use of it. I also appeal to Members of the Barisan Sosialis, to go back to the main road if they are lost in a cul-de-sac. I ask them not to use this international issue to make political capital and gain followers in the country to support their Party. We realise that our people are comprised mainly of anti-colonial people. But, as has been mentioned by the Member for Geylang Serai, although they can see the germs across the sea, they cannot see the elephant in front of their nose. So I wish to appeal to the Barisan Sosialis not to dig holes because they will be buried in them. They should not always behave like a cock. As I have said just now, the cock crows, but there is nothing in it.

Mr Speaker, I say that if we have been laughing at the motion which is being debated now, it is not because we wish to insult or show disrespect to the Indonesian people in their struggle. But what we are amused at are the tactics and behaviour of Members of the Barisan Sosialis when they speak on this motion. Once again, Mr Speaker, I wish to say that we wholeheartedly support the Indonesian people in their struggle to wrest West Irian from the Dutch colonialists. We have not lost hope that this dispute may be settled peacefully. This is our stand. Once again I deny categorically the accusation of the Barisan Sosialis that we are treating this motion lightly.

3.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Mr Speaker, I fully support the intention of the motion, but I am not the same as the Barisan Sosialis who use filthy mud to thrown before the people's eyes.

Mr Speaker, today I would only like to make a point on this motion. We have heard the Member for Thomson say that the P.A.P. has no sympathy with the Indonesian struggle to regain West Irian, because a number of people have been detained for questioning by the police for sticking up posters.

An hon. Member: That is true.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: The same complain was made at a rally organised by the Barisan Sosialis in support of West Irian. I am surprised that the Member for Thomson should have repeated this allegation after the correction made in the Government statement issued on 13th January. I would like to quote to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Straits Times of 13th January - this statement was issued by the Ministry of Culture:

`A Ministry of Culture statement today said the attempt "to mislead the listeners" could only be deliberate, as the speakers well knew why their followers had been detained for questioning by the police.

The Statement said that in pasting posters all over the place, including traffic signs, without permission from the appropriate authority, these people were deliberately breaching regulations in regard to the putting up of posters.

"Some of the Barisan Sosialis leaders, as former City Councillors and Assemblymen, know of these regulations. The fact that these posters were put up... late at night is further evidence that these people knew that they were breaching regulations,...

Regulations existed to ensure that no mischievous and dangerous posters were put up by irresponsible people - such as racialists or Communists.

They were also necessary to ensure that there was no unauthorised defacement of public places by uncontrolled pasting of posters.

In putting up posters without permission and under cover of darkness, the Barisan Sosialis prowlers quite rightly invited the attention of the police who detained them for questioning and then released them." the Government said.

It pointed out that there seemed to he a growing impression on the part of some members of the Barisan Sosialis that they Were a privileged group to whom the laws and regulations of the land should not apply and that any attempt to enforce obedience of these regulations constituted injustice.'

Surely, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis could have complied with the simple regulations that a permit should be obtained to put up posters. In any case, the police released those who put up the posters once the police were told that the posters were in support of the Indonesian struggle to regain West Irian. The police came suddenly upon people who were putting up posters in the middle of the night. Some of the posters were in a language that the police did not understand. So they had to detain these people for questioning. They had to make sure that the posters were not being put up by mischievous people for mischievous ends. These posters could have incited people to violence or to racial hatred pr to some other undesirable things. So was there anything wrong in the police detaining unknown people for questioning? Once the police were satisfied that the posters were in support of West Irian, they let the bill-posters go, even though they had breached the regulations. But let me ask the Barisan Sosialis and others not to break the law wilfully and, when the police try to enforce the law, to complain that there is injustice and intimidation. Let them also not use this as evidence that the Government is not sympathetic to Indonesia over the West Irian issue. The P.A.P. Government supported Indonesia over the West Irian issue in a statement over two years ago. It has again declared its stand on the issue a few weeks ago in a statement in support of Indonesia.

We of the P.A.P. support this motion wholeheartedly, but we do so for different reasons. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis at a mass rally on West Irian tried to draw suitable lessons for the people of Singapore. For example, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis said that the struggle in West Irian showed that the constitutional struggle was useless. We say that, as far as Singapore is concerned, that is not the lesson. We have always said that any attempt to carry on the anti-colonial struggle by violence in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society is to invite disaster for the people. It is all too easy for political leaders to talk bravely of revolutionary violence and incite people to violence. But, Sir, it is not the leaders who get hurt, injured or killed, but ordinary people. The leader gives orders and makes fierce speeches knowing full well that he will not get hurt or killed. I am not saying that there may not be circumstances when force may have to be used in defence of one's rights, but we say there is nothing to suggest that in the case of Singapore there is justification for using violence in order to get independence for Singapore. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis have given no good reasons why we should use violence in Singapore to get freedom.

3.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law (Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, to anyone who has any conscience or realisation to want independence and to hate oppression, he would surely give support to the Indonesian Government in order to get rid of Dutch colonialism in West Irian. In the same way, anywhere and at any place where people are oppressed and colonialised, we for our part positively support them wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, more than a year ago the P.A.P. had already shown sympathy for the Indonesian struggle to get rid of Dutch colonialism in West Irian. This is known by the people and also by the 13 representatives of the Barisan Sosialis, and also by the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis who have gone out of the P.A.P. In a fiery speech when he moved this motion, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, said that this House supports the struggle of the Indonesian people to take back West Irian from the Dutch. He said that the Barisan Sosialis had organised a mass rally in Geylang Serai and that more than 10,000 people were present. I would like to ask them why they held a rally at Geylang Serai. We know the reason why they have not got the support of the Malays. Therefore, the intention of holding a mass rally at Geylang Serai was to draw the Malays there and take the opportunity of influencing them to support the Barisan Sosialis. There is a Malay saying: while we dive, we drink. It is customary for the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis to find opportunities and adopt tactics to confuse the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we still remember when we discussed the education policy the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis only talked about Chinese education and they did not talk about the education of others - not to mention Malay education. In this motion moved by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, we have the opportunity of studying the irresponsible tactics of the Barisan Sosialis to confuse the people.

Mr Speaker, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis very often, talk very loudly in this Assembly that they have the support of the people, that the P.A.P. has no more the confidence of the people, that it is no more supported by them, that it is better for the P.A.P. to resign and hold general elections. I would like to state to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, who are sitting on the Opposition, that they have not been elected on the Barisan Sosialis ticket but on the Petir ticket. Let the Members of the Barisan Sosialis resign and determine their own future.

On the conflict between the Indonesians and the Dutch on West Irian, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis talked loudly in the rally at Geylang Serai, and in this Assembly they said they wanted to liquidate Dutch colonialism in West Irian. The Barisan Sosialis opposed merger but suddenly a number of their leaders communicated with the British Government's representative in Singapore. Is this their way to indicate their wish to liberate the people from British colonialism in Singapore? They would rather the British rule this place longer, and it is possible that they would have guarantees for the future of their leaders and not of the people. These are the tactics of the Barisan Sosialis in order to get the support of the people. We can study their irresponsible tactics to confuse the people as a result of the motion moved in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Queens-town put up his hands at the rally at Geylang Serai and said, "Let us get rid of colonialism." I would like to ask him, since when had he struggled against colonialism and opposed capitalists and imperialists, and how many times has he gone to jail? He was only known to the people when he joined the P.A.P. The people now know better that the Member for Queenstown is an instrument of the Barisan Sosialis which embraces Communism.

3.43 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of West Irian seems to me too serious to be made the subject of local party politics. It seems to me also that this is not the time for fiery language but for a cool head, a calm mind and a steady heart.

The circumstances surrounding West Irian are not yet unfavourable for a peaceful solution. Even the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Dr Soekarno, has said that the door is still open for a peaceful settlement, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is making an all-out effort to find a solution. Under the circumstances, it does not seem proper that we in this House should try to incite any particular Party in the dispute to precipitate action. For what is at stake, Sir, is not merely a piece of territory but the question of world peace or world war. We in Singapore have been through a world war and have suffered the horrors of an enemy occupation. We know that when there is a world conflagration the people who suffer most are very often the innocent people. Therefore, before we incite the parties concerned to serious military action, we should support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the good intentions of President Soekarno to keep the door of peaceful settlement open and contribute our bit to finding a solution towards world peace.

Sir, on the question of colonialism, we have said again and again here in this House that all the Parties represented here are against colonialism. We know that colonialism is an anachronism in this part of the world. It is no longer and should no longer be an issue. The question is, how soon can colonialism be removed from South-East Asia? We believe that it can be made to retire gracefully, as the British are about to do. We are seeing it, Sir; we have seen it in Malaya; we have seen it in Malaysia; and there is no doubt that we shall see it in the case of West Irian, provided the people do not incite the participants concerned to unnecessary conflict.

That being so, we should not make anti-colonialism a platform to discriminate between one Party and another Party. It seems to be the fashion to indicate that one Party is more anti-colonialistic than another Party, and the people are asked to judge the degree of incitement or firey language being used. I believe that it all depends on their convictions. Today we all agree that colonialism should be removed. The question is how soon and whether by violence or by peaceful means. It seems we have come to the stage where the colonial powers know that if they can retreat gracefully, they can salvage something from the wreck.

Sir, we therefore appeal to the Barisan Sosialis Members not to keep on drawing the line that there are Parties which are more against colonialism and others which are less against colonialism, because we are all agreed on that issue. Today we should really try our best to help Asians in the world find a peaceful solution to all their difficulties.

3.47 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as the motion moved by the Member for Queenstown seeks to give expression to the solidarity of all the once subject peoples of Asia and Africa against Western imperialist domination, no Afro-Asian nationalist in his right mind will give this motion other than unqualified support. For 400 years the European powers carved out the territories of Asia and Africa and exploited the natural and human resources of their colonial empires. No historian of economic history has attempted to deny that the industrial revolution of the countries of Europe was, in large measure, due to the capital accumulation made possible by the large surpluses drawn from their colonial possessions. Even America, a country at present with the world's highest standard of living, owes its wealth to the tremendous human sacrifices which the negro slaves, taken out from Africa, laboured to produce for the Americans of European descent.

The deep and abiding hatred for the injustices and iniquities of the colonial system aroused by the domination of the European peoples over the Asians and Africans became an irresistible force after the end of the Second World War. Those imperialist powers who have yielded and bent to the will of the nationalists have fared better than those who have sought to suppress and continue to subjugate their peoples. Although the Portuguese looked like winning the first prize for obstinacy and obtuseness in refusing to recognize that the days of European empires in Africa and Asia are over, that is not to say that any Asian or African will easily forget the brutalities of the French in Algeria or the Dutch in Indonesia.

When I went to Indonesia in January 1960, I could well understand the ferocity and intensity of the hatred of the Indonesians for the Dutch. The Dutch had sucked the wealthy Indonesia Archipelago dry. They had squeezed everything they could have from the then Netherlands East Indies for the enrichment of the Dutch and their country in Europe. They had a head tax or a capitation tax on all natives for the privilege of being alive, not for the purpose of educating the natives but for the purpose of enriching the Dutch. The local population was kept down to the position of serfs and slaves. A Javanese servant was so crushed and dispirited an animal that he crawled every time he passed the master of the household. And no Javanese was good enough to be an administrator in his own country. The postmaster, and sometimes even the assistant postmaster, was a Dutchman. And so the end of Dutch rule came with much bitterness, hatred and vengeance.

Perhaps one day some Afro-Asian historian will write and analyse history from the purely Afro-Asian point of view and equate the skilful running of an empire with the smooth and rapid dismantling of it. Those countries which ran their empires and squeezed the riches of the colonies not to the point of utter sterility were usually wise enough to know when it was time to make a graceful withdrawal. When the British left India and Pakistan in 1947, they had moved billions of crores of rupees worth of wealth from the soil of India created by the sweat of the Indian people for over 300 years. But they did leave behind a coterie of well-trained Indian administrators in the Indian Civil Service, trained and able Indian judges, teachers in the Universities, and an incorrupt and disciplined army. True, the army was made use of as cannon fodder in two world wars, but at least there was a coherent fighting force of nearly half a million men with a core of able Indian officers from the subahdar-major to the major-general.

But when the Dutch were pitch-forked out of Indonesia in 1949, they had ruined the country even more than the Japanese had done during the 3½ years of Japanese occupation. There were no Indonesian administrators, no technicians and no apparatus to run the wherewithal of a modern State. The bitterness and hatred have not worn off. I was not surprised to find, when I was in Indonesia in January 1960, that the deep and abiding hatred had eaten into the soul of the nation, partly by the selfish and greedy Dutch industrial combines, partly by the arrogance and superciliousness of Dutch officials and the Dutch people towards their former subjects; and last but not least, by their stupidity in clinging on to West Irian.

In so far as this motion seeks to give expression to the hatred that all subject peoples must feel strongly against Western imperialist domination, particularly in the case of the intransigent Dutchmen, we give our solid wholehearted support. At the end of my visit to Indonesia in January 1960, I signed a declaration jointly with the First Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, Dr Djuanda. This declaration included a statement of our attitude towards the West Irian issue. May I quote, Sir?

`The Government of Singapore fully supports the Indonesian struggle for the return of West Irian to the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia. The Singapore Government expresses the hope that the West Irian question will be settled peacefully soon.'

Sir, my quarrel with the Barisan Sosialis is that their intention in moving this motion is not to give expression to the solidarity of the former subject peoples of Asia and Africa. Their whole object is to play party politics over a great national issue of our neighbour, to play Communist politics over the struggle of subject peoples seeking freedom. Theirs is the cynical philosophy of utilising every current political movement, every strong political force, by associating themselves with the high ideals of the strong nationalist movements and forces and hoping thereby insidiously to pervert these movements to the Communist cause.

The years since 1945 saw the expulsion of European empires from Asia. The years after 1957, when Ghana got her independence, saw the European nations kicked out of Africa. All this had nothing to do with Communism. It was the desire of men to be free and to be rid of domination by another race, a desire which is as old as history itself. But listening to the diatribes of the Communists through the Barisan Sosialis, one might be led to believe that it was they who started the liberation movements, the movements for freedom of the former colonial peoples of Asia and Africa. They conveniently forgot the fact that it is nationalism and not Communism which gave the driving force to freedom movements throughout Asia and Africa. To them, in their cynicism, this desire for freedom offers a magnificent opportunity to use and pervert it for their own objective of world Communist domination. But because they know that Communism will not invoke enthusiasm in the subject countries of Asia and Africa in the way that the desire to be free from domination of colonialism has done, so they have hidden behind the slogan of anti-colonialism.

The nationalist hates colonialism because he loves independence. He wants his countrymen to be free and to run their own country. He is anti-colonialist because he loves nationalism and freedom. The Communist does not love nationalism or freedom in the sense that the mass of nationalists throughout Afro-Asia understand it. He hates colonialism because he wants to establish the Communist millennium which he believes can only be accomplished by the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the cadres in the steel framework of the Communist combat party. And because the mass of the people are nationalists, not Communists, he hides the fact that he is a Communist by talking about anti-colonialism. But unlike the nationalist, the Communist does not end his anti-colonialism with the achievement of independence. He cannot afford to, because with the achievement of independence the majority of the people who are nationalists want to start building up their independent nation into a modem State with all the sinews of an industrial society. The Communist anti-colonialist fears this, and rather than come out and say that he is a Communist and therefore does not believe in the nationalist solution in trying to build up a national State, he says the anti-colonial struggle is not over. He keeps on asking everybody to go on fighting authority in the name of anti-colonialism, hoping that out of the anarchy and economic chaos that will result, he will be able to assume power and establish a Communist State.

Let me ask the Member for Thomson, if not now in this House, then at a subsequent time, after consultation with his colleagues, not in this Assembly, but possibly in the Opposition Committee Room, the following questions. After West Irian has been returned to Indonesia, will they say that the Indonesian people have completed their anti-colonialist struggle? Are they prepared to admit that the Federation of Malaya is free and independent? Are they going to admit that the anti-colonial phase is over after independence and that the time has come to settle what kind of independent country Malaya should be? The Communists are now still fighting in Malaya. In the same way after West Irian, the anti-colonial struggle for the Communists will have to go on and on and on, because in that way they hope to conceal their desire to carry on their struggle for Communism by using anti-colonialism as the camouflage and avoid being isolated as Communists.

Sir, this is clear in the speech of the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis when he spoke at a specially sponsored mass rally of the Barisan Sosialis at Geylang Serai. He was reported to have made, without any subsequent denials, several significant statements. First, may I quote the Straits Times of 8th January, page 4:

`We realise that the moment is coming when we too will receive the support and help of other peace loving people to free us from colonial domination.'

Sir, who are these peace loving people? Does he mean the U.S.A. and the Western imperialist countries? Surely not. They, are war-mongering imperialist colonialists. Does he mean the decadent bourgeois nationalists or neutralist States? Surely not. Can he mean the Russians and the Communist blocs of peace loving people whose intense and passionate desire for peace led them to explode the 90 megaton bomb? And he went on to say in the Straits Times:

`Colonialism cannot be ended by any form of constitutional imposition, and all should have their eyes open who imagine that they can end all forms of colonial exploitation of the Borneo people simply by having merger.'

Sir, the Chinese report of this speech is even more interesting. The Secretary-General spoke in Chinese and the Sin Chew Jit Poh on the 8th of January reports him as differentiating between the warlike Western countries, the neutral countries and the peace loving countries. As there are only three power blocs in the world, there can be little doubt, reading the Chinese Press, who are the people he refers to when he talks of peace loving people. Sir, I do not want to have an unnecessary argument with Members of the Barisan Sosialis over my -interpretation of what is quoted here. I will leave it to the interpreter to put it in his own words. What he said, Sir, was as follows. These are just the words and phrases used for interpretation by the interpreter as such. I will give -

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister will also give his interpretation. Then he is within the Standing Orders; otherwise lie is not.

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir. If I were to give only my own interpretation, it might be said that I have not correctly transposed the meaning of the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a little technical difficulty about the interpreter interpreting. So if the Prime Minister will read in Chinese, and then pause, I will switch on to the interpreters, then the interpreters will have some time in interpreting. There must be another pause before the Prime Minister gives his own interpretation.

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 8th January, Singapore, at Page 1. This is about Indonesia:

(Interpreter's interpretation): `The anti-colonial struggle is not completed.'

(Prime Minister's interpretation): `The Indonesian people's struggle against colonialism is not completed.'

(Interpreter): `And Indonesia was formerly the Dutch Netherlands East Indies!

(Prime Minister): `Indonesia is the former Archipelago of the Netherlands East Indies.'

This is the basis on which the Barisan Sosialis supports the claim of Indonesia over West Irian.

(Interpreter): `In South-East Asia peace is ever increasing from day to day.'

(Prime Minister): `In South-East Asia from day to day, peace is increasing.'

(Interpreter): `The Western world in Vietnam, Laos and South Korea, the puppets are finding more and more difficulty now.'

(Prime Minister): `The Western powers in South Vietnam, Laos and South Korea - the stooges of Western powers -in these territories are meeting more and more difficulties.'

(Interpreter): `The Western world and the pro-colonialist countries are afraid and they are dissatisfied with the neutral and independent countries and peace loving countries for their influence in this area.'

(Prime Minister): `The Western powers and the pro-colonialist countries are afraid and are not satisfied with the independent neutral countries and the peaceful countries whose influence is in this region.'

This is important. There is a clear distinction - three blocs. The Western countries and the pro-colonialist countries. I do not know who is meant. He has named them: South Vietnam, South Korea and Laos. I think certain inhibitions prevent them from adding a few more in their desire to avoid a counter attack. Then he goes on and says that independent countries - neutralist stand (chun li). No mention of the Federation of Malaya, Sir, although it has declared its clear independent, neutral stand with regard to West Irian. No praise is due to the Federation. And the peace loving countries? Who else would the peace loving countries mean? Then they went on to great praises of President Soekarno. Mr Lim Ching Siong:

(Interpreter): `The people of Indonesia are not cowards. They are the strongest - like the people of Indonesia. So far no President has already stated this point.'

Here is a friendly gesture by the Barisan Sosialis to friendly neighbours!

(Prime Minister): `The Indonesian leaders are not cowards. They are strong people, just like the Indonesian people. And President Soekarno has already made clear this point.'

Sir, if we must give credit - and certainly I am all in favour from time to time of exchanging compliments with friendly and important neighbours - it seems to me by an intentional ommission of a certain even closer neighbour and a more important leader, certain adverse inferences have been implied. However, perhaps they think the Federation Government does not read Chinese, and all this might be forgotten. This is the philosophy of the Barisan Sosialis, through the Communist open front leader - Mr Lim Chin Siong.

(Interpreter): `Colonialism cannot depend on any control or cannot be ended by any constitutional means.'

This is a very important point. I did not want to have this misinterpreted by me. As I heard the interpreter:

`Colonialism cannot be ended by any constitutional means.'

This is the basic philosophy. And I did not know why the Member for Thomson was equivocating when we asked him what he meant by the policy of open confrontation of force. But then the Member for Thomson does not read the Chinese papers. So he can perhaps be excused of the fiercer line being taken by the Secretary-General. Then he talks about the strength of progressive forces.

(Interpreter): `The progressive forces, some people are of the opinion that b) going through the Malaysia plan they will be able to help the Bornean people to end all sorts of exploitation in any form. This incident should be able to serve as an eye-opener. The people in these territories must decide for themselves and make their own claims. It is useless to go by constitutional means. The people have been given up to the pro-Western people and controlled by them. This will not be able to get freedom for the people themselves.'

That is the sort of statement that explains the whole philosophy of the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists. Let me give my version of this. There are people who think that through Malaysia they can end all the various forms of colonial exploitation in the Borneo territories, and this happening, namely, in West Irian, should awaken them and open their eyes. These things must be settled by the people and their demands themselves. The plan - this is to be fair to the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis - I would like to read again:

(Interpreter): `It is useless attempting to play with constitutional means.'

(Prime Minister): `For anybody with the intention to play around with the constitution is a waste of time. The people who are handed over to the control of pro-Western leaders cannot get freedom.'

This is an important statement of political belief. If the leader of a country is pro-Western, in other words, he does not take the Moscow line or the line of the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandoeng or in Cairo or in Belgrade, then he is pro-Western, and handing over power to any group of men who are pro-Western cannot bring freedom. That is a very strange proposition. Sir, I am not defending the policy or the approach of countries in Asia and Africa which maintain good relations with the West. Every country and its people have the right to choose their own leaders who decide on their own policy. But I say, to tell the people who have popularly voted for a government whose policy is based on friendship with the West, that by that relationship such countries cannot have freedom is to spout a straightforward Communist line.

The 22nd Congress in Moscow has clearly demarcated the world into three blocs - the Communist bloc of progressive nations, the Imperialist bloc of capitalist nations which must be destroyed, and the in-between bloc of national bourgeois States - Nehru's India, Soekarno's Indonesia, Nasser's Egypt and so on. But, of course, not U.M.N.O.'s Federation of Malaya. According to that thesis, espoused and explained by the Barisan Sosialis, it is the colonialist stooge line. Therefore, freedom is an utter mockery.

(Interpreter): `We have nothing to be afraid of. All the progressive forces in the world are expanding and this fact makes our job very much easier.'

(Prime Minister): `We have nothing to be afraid of. The development of progressive forces in the world makes our duty so much easier.'

Every time they are in difficulty they talk about progressive forces advancing in the world while they go downhill. I do not know how long they can keep on consoling their followers who have to suffer for the blunders and stupidities of immature and inexperienced leaders. But they always console themselves. I have heard it so often, Sir - I have had 7 years. Since 1954, we have been with them and every time they make a major error, we tell them not to do certain stupid things; they get into trouble for doing it; they keep on saying having the world progressive forces on their side. And then he ends up his speech:

(Interpreter): `We are all peace loving, but let us see clearly for ourselves that we love freedom all the more.'

(Prime Minister): `Everybody loves peace, but let everybody see clearly we [namely, the Barisan Sosialis, I take it, because the words used for "everybody" are Ta Chia; but then they say Wo Men, that means "We Barisan Sosialis" and the crowd is excluded; Ta Chia means "We" where the crowd is included] love freedom even more.'

What does that mean, Sir? Why does the Member for Thomson bother to try and apologetically pretend that they love parliamentary democracy and the constitutional forms of struggle and constitutional advance, when everyday this philosophy of violence and the inevitability of world revolution is preached?

The Member for Thomson declared that I had lost my anti-colonial fervour, and he asked me to go and find it back. With your kind permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was able to ask him where he thought I had lost it, and he said in the Colonial Office in London. I have been wondering whether it is worth while writing to the Colonial Office in London to find out if I had dropped anything there. But I refrain from doing such an irrational thing because I came back from the Colonial Office in June 1958, and at that time the Member for Thomson was quite happy; he was convinced that I had the right degree of anti-colonial fervour and he was working very hard with me together in the unions competing against the Communist cadres throughout all the years since June 1958 to September 1960 when he decided to go over to the other side. Sir, can it be that after he has gone over, when he talks of anti-colonialism, he really means pro-Communism and that my honest brand of anti-colonialism, which means pro-nationalism, is no longer admired by him?

Sir, I thought he made a singularly unhappy speech, but then he had a singularly unhappy task. He tried to show why the desire to liberate West Irian and to integrate it with Indonesia is anti-colonialism. But the desire to liberate Singapore and the three Borneo territories and to integrate them with Malaya in a Federation of Malaysia is not anti-colonialism. Then he gave a whole series of excuses. Perhaps I should be fair to him. His Brains Trust closeted in the Opposition Committee Room have brought out a whole series of excuses to try and show why West Irian is different from Malaysia. The curious thing about this Brain Trust is that since they moved over from this side of the House in the Committee Room to a far-away corner in the Opposition Committee Room -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must explain that the removal was at the direction of the Speaker.

The Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir,I have no doubt that the proprieties of the transfer of tenancy were duly observed by you. But the curious thing is that, ever since they began this meeting in January, the Brains Trust have become very shy, and they do not come to the C.P.A. Room to talk and converse with us. I do not know if it is because they realise that they have got the plague, and, in decency and humanity, they want to keep their malady to themselves. But the fact is that people like Messrs. Sandra Woodhull, Dr Poh Soo Kai, Dr Lim Hock Siew have avoided us and abjured the alcoholic conviviality which gave them so much temporary euphoria and solace during our meeting in November and December. Only Mr Lim Ching Siong occasionally turned up to exchange pleasantries with us. I do not know what has overtaken them, but the jollity is gone; and, alas, they are so morose that they have hidden themselves in the secrecy of their special Committee Room. But let me read to the Member for Thomson what his Secretary-General has said in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. I will read this first in English, Sir, and then I will read the Chinese text:

`The struggle of the Indonesian people against colonialism is not finished. The Dutch must return to Indonesia all the islands which once constituted the former Dutch East Indies.'

This is the basis of the Barisan Sosialis support for West Irian. The Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis explained that West Irian belonged to the Dutch East Indies, that Indonesia is the rightful successor of the Dutch East Indies, and that the whole empire must be given up to the nationalist heir and successor, namely, the Republic of Indonesia; and he, Mr Lim Ching Siong, the most important open front Communist leader, has logically denounced that all this talk of self-determination in West Irian and the giving of self-government to Papuans in West Irian is so much prevarication and duplicity on the part of the wicked Dutch colonialists.

Sir, I have summarised it in one short paragraph - about three paragraphs in Chinese - and I lay it upon the Table for the interpreter to spell it out in Hansard.

Sir, in the same way, we expect them to dismiss as utter rubbish any British talk of self-determination for a few hundred thousand people in the Borneo territories. As far as I can see, the only difference is that, unlike the stubborn and the stupid Dutch who insist on talking of self-determination for a few hundred thousand Papuans, the British are sensible enough to know the absurdity of making such excuses and are yielding to the logic and the relentless pressure of the nationalist solidarity for Malaysia.

Sir, what I cannot understand is how a troupe of dialectical jugglers can get themselves into such an absurd position where they support the anti-colonial struggle for the liberation of West Irian, and hence denounce the hypocrisy of the Dutch in talking of self-determination for the Papuans, and, at the same time, support the same anti-colonial nonsense about self-determination for a few hundred thousand people in the Borneo territories when the whole desire of the people of Malaysia is to be free.

Sir, the Member for Thomson tried to explain this in several ways. He said that the British support Malaysia and that the Dutch oppose West Irian. Therefore, one is pro-colonialist because the colonialists support it, and the other is anti-colonialist because the colonialists oppose it. I asked him, therefore, whether if the British oppose Malaysia he would support it, because then it would become, by his reasoning, an anti-colonial issue. He was not able to give me a reply but he promised me one when the Malaysia debate comes on. Sir, I am sorry that from time to time I have to ask the Member for Thomson embarrassing questions, so embarrassing that he has absented himself from this Chamber. But it seems to me that whether an issue is anti-colonial or not depends not upon whether the colonialists stupidly oppose it, or wisely, in their own self interest, support it. A stupid colonial power opposes any form of withdrawal of his imperialist position. Was the Member for Thomson in his right mind when he suggested that this should be the yardstick, whether a nationalist movement is anti-colonial or not? Did he suggest that nationalism should be measured not by the desire of a people to liberate every portion of their territory but by whether or not the imperialist power yields? And if it does, then it cannot be anti-colonialist, because the colonialists have yielded. Therefore, as a corollary, the Member for Thomson suggested that any plan supported by the British must be pro-colonialists. So I asked him whether the plan to integrate the three Borneo territories into a Federation of Borneo is a colonialist plan. It must be because, according to him, a plan supported by the colonialists is colonial. He had difficulty in answering that question about the West Borneo Federation because it was the British who sponsored the scheme and it has been reported to be supported by one of the few non-Communist anti-colonial Parties in the Borneo territories which has relations with the Barisan Sosialis, namely, Party Ra'akyat of Brunei. The President has warmly supported this plan of the Borneo Federation which is a colonialist plan because the British sponsored and supported it. But was the Member for Thomson suggesting that Inche Azahari is thereby a colonialist stooge for supporting a colonialist plan long after the colonialists have abandoned it? Sir, he then said that West Irian is the wish of the people of Indonesia including the people of West Irian. Sir, how did he know this? Did he not know that Malaysia is strongly supported by the people of our five territories? After he went at public expense to Borneo. We allowed him to go, but he has not been to West Irian, although I have assured the House the other day that if he volunteers for its liberation, although as a Government we will not be able to pay for his passage, as a Party we will pay for it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): One-way ticket!

The Prime Minister: And if he believed that the claim is supported by the West Irianians, then surely he was in fact advocating that there should be acceptance of the colonialist proposition that the Papuans or West Irianians or West Irians should decide whether or not they should come into Indonesia. But then no nationalist in his right mind concedes to such colonialist nonsense.

Then he went on to say that whether or not the desire to complete the liberation of a former empire, a part of which is still under subjugation, is anti-colonialism depends upon whether the people resisted it at the time of separation. He said that the Dutch were resisted by the Indonesians when they separated West Irian. This is a strange thing about the Barisan Sosialis - whenever they deal with people whom they think they can eat up, they denounce and abuse them in vicious terms, name them by vicious and vile epithets. But when they deal with people whom they feel they are an unequal match for, they begin to talk in innuendoes; they have an unholy fear of talking direct. As the people in high places supported the separation of Singapore and the Federation and of the Borneo territories when Malaya was allowed to become independent. Sir, does he seriously suggest that whether an issue is anti-colonial or otherwise depends upon whether when a portion of the territory is allowed to gain independence, people in high places protest at the continued subjugation of other parts of the territory? In other words, it depends upon the accident of the actions of people in high places at the time of separation, and not upon the intrinsic qualities of an anti-colonialist situation. I am surprised that the Member for Thomson, who is such an avid student of dialectical materialism and socialist realism, should be led to propound such a subjective and not an objective theory, of sizing up whether or not the movement is anti-colonial. The Member for Thomson said that it does not depend upon whether West Irian is really a part of Indonesia, which is quite contrary to what the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, as I read in Chinese, said in Geylang Serai, but that it depends upon whether President Soekarno opposes it or whether the Tunku does not oppose it. Since President Soekarno opposes it, that is anti-colonialism, but since the Tunku acquiesces - people in high places, Sir,I do not know whether the Member for Thomson is likely to pass his Tenderfoot Badge when he applies to be promoted from just a sympathiser to a proper arid regular member of the organisation. But if he keeps on talking like that, I can assure him that he will fail the first elementary examination in dialectical materialism. Then he said that West Irian is different because the Dutch retained it by force. These were all his words. They were reported in the Straits Times. We heard it in this House. I listened with great astonishment to the ingenuity of the Brains Trust in trying to say, "Well, that is red, this one is brown. The other one is Soekarno and this one is the Tunku. And anyway the Dutch retained West Irian by force," implying that if the Dutch did not retain it by force but by popular consent, then it is all right, it is not anti-colonialism. I do not know whether he realised the full implications of his proposition. But this is really the height of dialectical absurdity because, by implication, the Member for Thomson, the great anti-colonialist, was giving, in a back-handed way, a bouquet to the British Raj, suggesting of course that the British are not retaining Singapore and the Borneo territories by force but by the popular consent and will of the people. Now are the Barisan Sosialis anti-colonialist? When it suits them, they say, "No, we must have the colonial struggle to carry on. Then we can use this slogan, hide ourselves together with the nationalists, because the nationalists are anti-Communist and non-Communists but all are anti-colonialists. Therefore, let us all get together under a common denominator - anti-colonialism." Then he reached the culmination of his tremendous argument against Malaysia. He said that what the Barisan Sosialis wanted is the original Malaysia. He said, "Melayu Raya, for merger of Singapore. Malaya and the Borneo territories into the Republic of Indonesia." He left out the Philippines. I do not know whether it is because in his definition it is not included, but anyway he was quite happy to merge with the Republic of Indonesia. Well, there speak Bintang Timor and Harian Rakyat - the voice of the P.K.I. (Parti Komunis Indonesia). And he quoted all this without so much as saying with the leave and consent of Bintang Timor and Harian Rakyat. He was propounding this as a new and original proposition of the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, I can understand this line of the Bintang Timor and the Communists in Indonesia. They want Malaysia as part of Indonesia. Why? They say that Malaysia as a separate State is anti-Indonesia. That is what the Member for Thomson said, "Malaysia is anti-Indonesia." And why? The Member for Thomson may or may not know; he has made so many elementary mistakes in explaining away in dialectical terms the political situation in South-East Asia. Perhaps he may not know that an independent and nationalist State of Malaysia would be difficult of absorption by Indonesia because, unlike West Irian, they would have to meet nationalists and not colonialist forces. He may or may not be sincere when he says that he wants a merger of Singapore and the territories of the Federation and Borneo into the Republic of Indonesia. We can only assume that he and his Secretary-General are sincere. I read the Secretary-General just now praising in very glowing terms the President of the Republic of Indonesia, that he is a great man; and according to this picture of the mass rally, in the honoured place on the right-hand side of the symbol of the Barisan Sosialis - the Red Star - is a great portrait of President Soekarno. And he said, "Oh, this is the struggle of righteousness against wickedness." The Barisan Sosialis keep on telling us that they represent the people. I say to them that if they keep on repeating that Singapore, the Borneo territories and Malaya should go into Indonesia and merge with it and they say that it represents the view of the people, they will wind up in Woodbridge Hospital and not just as members of the Advisory Board.

Sir, the Member for Thomson made what he thought was a scathing statement which would reduce me to utter ridicule. He said that I spent my time in Kuching playing golf all the time. Sir, he forgot that only three weeks previously he had bitterly denounced me when he returned from Borneo for having spent my time advising the Federation delegation on how to answer the difficult questions put by delegates from Sarawak and North Borneo and how, in spite of my assistance, he referred to me as an astute personality - I am deeply honoured; a back-handed compliment from an ideological mortal enemy. Of course, personally we are still good friends. He buys me a drink -

Mr Rajah: And you buy him two!

The Prime Minister: I have not bought him two yet, Sir,I always put it on the account of the Member for Nee Soon who is the wealthiest of us all in private practice and whose wealth is clearly visible now. However, he said that in spite of all my assistance, there were so many difficult questions that could not be answered; he had to go back to Kuala Lumpur, adjourn the meeting there for further time to consider and give satisfactory answers. Where is the truth - two utterly contradictory statements made at two different times? I can only assume that the Member for Thomson had forgotten the absurdity of his first allegation when he made his second allegation. Perhaps he has forgotten the truth that, as a member of the Singapore delegation, I worked hard to put the Singapore point of view across. And the day's work having been done, I took the opportunity of a bit of recreation to play golf, while he bemused himself at the bar of the Aurora. Mind you, Sir, the Aurora is the poshest hotel in Kuching - all paid for by C.P.A. Kuching.

Mr Speaker: Order. As Speaker, I was just debating in my mind whether or not conduct at the bar of the Aurora is personal conduct. If it is, then perhaps the Prime Minister should not refer to that, just as I told the Member for Thomson not to refer to golf playing in the first instance.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I would like to lay myself open to criticism of any conduct - whatever I do in public is public conduct, be it on my personal behalf or on behalf of the public weal that I do these things. However we will leave it at that. All I need say about golf, Sir, is that it is a pity he did not pursue the game because three years ago the Member for Thomson and Dominic Puthucheary and his good friends went up to Fraser's Hill and tried out my clubs on the golf course there. Had he persisted, he might have understood the potential political value of golf which has led to his undoing.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am glad the Prime Minister has made that statement, because it seems to me that probably modren golf is public conduct!

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir, and quite rightly, from time to time I anxiously watch the comings and goings on the golf course, because in the free and lax atmosphere when one looks at vistas on the wider horizon, one is not worried by the hothouse atmosphere of synthetic revolution bred out of anxiety and neurosis in a smoke-filled Committee Room. In calm and detachment, forces are analysed to their last and absolute fundamentals, and prognoses are more likely often made in quiet and peaceful surroundings than in synthetically excited and anxious ones.

Sir, all I need say before I close the subject of golf is that I have a clear encouragement from the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis that I should play more golf. I met him on Friday in the C.P.A. Room, and he inquired anxiously after my health. He said he heard that I went and addressed the University of Malaya students and that I had blacked out. I said, "Yes, I had." And he said, "Ah, you worked too hard and the strain was too much for you." I said, "No, it was just one minute. It was an old complaint". He said he know about it because - and this happened when he was in this Assembly - you will remember I once recounted the problem of people who suffer from low-blood pressure, of which I am an unfortunate sufferer. I went on to assure him that even if I were to pass out permanently, it would be unlikely that merger or Malaysia would be forgotten. And he ruefully agreed. He is a man better trained in dialectical materialism and socialist realism than the Member for Thomson. He understands that history is not made by the P.A.P. or the Prime Minister. There are important movements and forces and peoples, and one of those forces and peoples is nationalism in Malaysia. And those who stand in the way of nationalism and want to throw themselves against this overwhelming might may well have reason to despair when the relentless process and logic of forces and events unfold in Malaysia. In any case, everything is all right and I hastened to assure him what he had already known many years ago, that people who suffer from low-blood pressure live long lives.

Sir, the Member for Thomson should remember that most people do not change their basic beliefs as he has done. He melted away at the thought of a long and protracted struggle for supremacy against the Communist cadres in the unions. He became tired and in his exhaustion - he was in a state of physical exhaustion in September 1960 when he asked us to send him away to England on a T.U.C. course, to run away from it all for a while - he believed that the world would belong to the zealous Communists. Well, that is his mistake and that is his business. But he mentioned Ferhat Abbas and Lumumba and how utterly disgusted he was that we were not sincerely and avidly in favour of the great causes of peace and anti-colonialism represented in these two men.

Let me first remind him - he knows all this - these are things which were uttered between us. Let me remind him first of Lumumba and what I said in this debate - the thing that made the late Mr Lumumba politically important was that his opponents were stupid enough to assassinate him. But for the fact that he died such a cruel death at the hands of political opponents, he may well have gone down as a comic figure in Africa.

Sir, in those days - I think it was January last year - we were all still comrades in the P.A.P., and the Member for Thomson and Mr Sandra Woodhull were discussing with me in the C.P.A. Room as to why we should not only move a resolution about Mr Lumumba but that I should name a road after Lumumba, for instance, Lumumba Highway. I told them then, and I tell them now that I am quite happy to call a circus after Lumumba, if the next roundabout lacks a suitable name, but I see no reason why we should commemorate the name of an anti-colonialist whom the Russians thought they could use as their stooge but who lacked basic stability, both emotional and political. He let his people down, among other things, by using the resources of the Congo to take a Belgian popsy with him to the United Nations, so described in Time magazine, Sir, and in unpleasant detail - "the redhead daughter of a curio dealer". I told both Mr Woodhull and the Member for Thomson that that was not my idea of a great nationalist leader. Mr Woodhull said I should make allowances for the African ethos. And I had a sneaking feeling that perhaps Mr Woodhull was already finding his excuses for the day when he would be measured against the austere and puritannical standards of the Chinese revolution. However, we will let that pass.

As for Ferhat Abbas, nobody in his right senses would doubt the sincerity with which we welcomed him. Here was a French scholar, the Algerian nationalist, the moderate in an extreme Algerian situation. Now, unfortunately, by the dictates of the situation he has been replaced by fiercer and sterner men. We welcomed him and his people for their heroic struggle against the stupidities and the atrocities of the French. But just in case the Member for Thomson does not know it, let me tell him that the F.L.N., which formed the Provisional Government of Algeria, expels anybody who is found to be a Communist or have Communist connections. And the F.L.N. have not forgotten that the Algerian Communist Party opposed the revolt against the French when they started it in 1956.

So you see, Sir, even though a nationalist movement does not lend itself as a stooge instrument of the Communists, objective circumstances compel the Communists to support it. International Communists, in utter and complete cynicism of the fate of Communists both in Algeria and in Egypt, who are smacked down with considerable regularity and ruthlessness, support both the Aswan Dam and the F.L.N. So one does not have to be a pro-Communist in order to be an anti-colonialist. That is the first lesson to learn in objective dialectical materialism.

The problem of the Communists is simply this: unlike the nationalists, they cannot afford to say what they believe in. And so they start on false premises. They say they believe in democracy when, in fact, they believe in Communism. They say they believe in the freedom of the individual when, in fact, they believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have the advantage of saying honestly and frankly what we believe in, and to do what we have stated we believed in, like an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya, not an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya in the Barisan Sosialis, because that is not what they believe in. We believe that West Irian belongs to Indonesia, so we support this motion. In the same way, logically and consistently, we believe that Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei belong to Malaysia, and we are not afraid of supporting history. Since there are people who always cite history whenever they find a dearth of ideological arguments, let me assure them that very shortly history will prove that they are on our side, the side of Malaysia.

Mr Speaker: It is a convenient time to suspend. I suspend this sitting. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

5.31 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, this is the third time this House is discussing foreign affairs. I remember the first time when we discussed foreign affairs, it was on the motion on Algeria moved by the Minister for Culture. At that time, this House censured the French colonialists for their atrocities in Algeria. The second topic discussed was the motion moved by the Prime Minister in regard to the assassination of the Prime Minister of the Congo, Mr Lumumba. At that time we condemned the Belgian colonialists for their actions against the Congo people. Today we are discussing the Dutch colonialists and their bloody administration in West Irian. These three motions show us very clearly that the motive is to condemn the imperialists and their suppression of the colonial people. The two previous motions were unanimously supported by this House. But today, the motion that we are discussing and the speeches made supporting the Indonesian people in their liberation of West Irian are different from the previous speeches.

We have listened just now to the speech of the Prime Minister. It took him about two hours. His speech and the speeches by the Ministers in the past few days clearly show the Government's stand on West Irian. From the Prime Minister's speech, we can clearly see that the Government is not honest in its support of the Indonesian people in their liberation of West Irian. The Government says the motive of this motion is inspired by the Communists. The speech by the Prime Minister clearly shows that he is anti-Communist. He says that the P.A.P. Government support the Indonesian people in their efforts to retake West Irian.

In January 1960, after his tour of Indonesia, the Prime Minister signed a joint communique with the Indonesian First Minister, Dr Djuanda, which clearly states the P.A.P. stand. I do not deny that this communique was about the support which we expressed for the Indonesian people. At the same time, we hope the West Irian question could be solved by peaceful means. However, the one who drafted this joint communique was not the Prime Minister. I was one of the delegates who visited Indonesia. The joint communique was drafted by the Member for Upper Serangoon and Mr S. Woodhull jointly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in our support of the struggle against colonialism, it is not necessary to distinguish between those who belong to this camp and those who belong to that camp and those who belong to which political Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has said just now that we said at our mass rally that we love peace but that we love freedom more. According to the analysis made by the Prime Minister, this was Communistic. But the Prime Minister did not notice that this phrase was uttered by President Soekarno at a mass meeting at Djokjakarta on the 29th December, 1961. Does it mean that President Soekarno is a Communist?

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister has also mentioned my colleague. He said that the Member for Thomson was pro-Communist and that he went over to the Communists in June 1960. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said that if the Member for Thomson wanted to join the first class for the cause of dialectical materialism, he would fail. We can see very clearly that the speeches made by the Prime Minister are contradictory. If he failed in his dialectical materialism, how could he become a Communist? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: The Opposition should be given the courtesy of a silent hearing. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Therefore, we can see from the speeches of the Prime Minister that his theory is bankrupt. It cannot stand up to argument. It cannot stand up to facts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has also referred to the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis who, at the Geylang Serai mass meeting, mentioned about the peace loving countries. According to the analysis made by the Prime Minister, the peace loving countries he referred to are the Communist countries. I am astonished at the logic propounded by the Prime Minister. Does it mean that only the Communist countries are peace loving people? Does it mean that if we are a non-Communist country, then we should say that we are not peace loving, and that we are against peace? Mr Speaker, Sir, peace is not only the desire of the Asian people. Peace is also the desire of the European people. It is the desire of the people of the whole world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech made by the Prime Minister, which lasted about two hours, we can say that he represents -

Mr Speaker: Order. For the correct record, the speech took about one and a quarter hours.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech by the Prime Minister which lasted about two hours, we can say that he represents -

Mr Speaker: Order. Probably the Member did not hear me. The record of the Prime Minister's speech indicates that he spoke for one and a quarter hours, not two hours.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech by the Prime Minister which lasted for more than one hour, we can see that he detailed the Director of the Special Branch to make such an analysis in this House. We are not surprised to hear such speeches by him. At the same time, we will not be intimidated by what he says. The people of Singapore will not be intimidated by what he says. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we open our map, it clearly shows that West Irian belongs to the Indonesian Republic. It is part of Indonesian territory. Except for the colonialists and the imperialists, the people of the whole world recognise West Irian as belonging to the Indonesians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from news agency reports, we know that Dutch warships have opened fire on Indonesian warships. This has clearly shown the people in Asia and Africa that the Dutch do not want to give back West Irian to the Indonesians. As part of the Asian people, we should solemnly warn the Dutch colonialists and the imperialists that their parasitical way of occupying other people's territory in this twentieth century will not be tolerated any more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 700,000 people in West Irian have been exploited and suppressed by the Dutch colonialists for more than 300 years. In the past two years, they have still not been able to enjoy the same political life as that of their compatriots in Indonesia. They have also suffered at the hands of the Dutch colonialists. The Dutch colonialists have not given back West Irian to the Indonesian people. From the time of the round-table conference up to 1962, the Dutch colonialists have not expressed their desire to surrender West Irian to the Republic of Indonesia. In the General Assembly of the United Nations, the reasonable demands of the Indonesian representatives were objected to and frustrated by the imperialists. The so-called big family of nations have not been able to help solve the problems of the member States.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recollect that in April 1955, a conference was organised by the Afro-Asian countries at Bandoeng. 29 nations from Asia and Africa attended and they discussed economic and cultural co-operation. More important than that was the fact that the conference passed the five principles and their stand against the Dutch colonialists and their continued domination of West Irian. This conference reflects the struggle waged by the Indonesian people. Their anti-imperialist struggle is also part of the struggle of the Afro-Asian peoples. In this solemn struggle, there are two methods of solving the problem; first, the problem can be solved peacefully at the conference table; this is the best way of solving the problem: secondly, on the battlefield, i.e., by force: this is the last resort and is the only alternative which could not be solved by peaceful means. We, the Barisan Sosialis, are glad to see that this problem is solved peacefully. We are not against the Indonesian people for trying to liberate West Irian by force, just as the Indian Government have used force to retake Goa. The Indonesian people wish to liberate West Irian. This is the first round of the Afro-Asian people against colonialism. In this struggle, we, the people of Singapore, should not remain indifferent and neutral. We should not also sabotage their struggle. Therefore, my Chairman, representing the Barisan Sosialis, has clearly explained his motive when he tabled this motion. In this struggle against colonialism, there should not be any barrier placed on language, race or custom. There should be no distinction. As regards the people in Singapore, who are still under colonialism, they should try their best to help the Indonesian people. Therefore, this motion which has been tabled in this House reflects their support of the Indonesian people against the Dutch colonialists.

Last week the P.A.P. theoretician, namely, the Minister for Culture, spoke on this motion. His speech showed the reactionary and childish stand the P.A.P. has taken on the question of West Irian. The Front Benches of the Government treated this serious problem with levity and frivolity. I doubt whether the theories propounded by the Front Benches are supported by the Back Benches of the Government.

Members will recollect that on the 22nd of February, 1961, the Minister for Culture moved a motion in support of the Algerian people. It is barely one year since the motion was tabled, but they have changed entirely. They have already turned Right. In the motion tabled by the Minister for Culture last year, he asked the Government to allot $10,000 to help the Provisional Government of Algeria. He also appealed to the people of Singapore to support generously the Algerian Fund. At the same time, the P.A.P. also donated $2,000 to this fund as a kind of show. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore donated the money to the Algerian people in their struggle against the French colonialists. They gave what they could materially and spiritually to support the Algerian people in order to let them fight more effectively against the French colonialists. But, on the question of the Indonesian struggle against the Dutch over West Irian, what kind of argument did the Minister for Culture put forward? Let me now quote what he said last week in this Assembly concerning the question of West Irian. The Minister for Culture said the Barisan Sosialis not only supported these conditions, but they were also prepared to support the Indonesians to invade and to continue to invade West Irian. Mr Speaker, here are certain Barisan supporters who willingly volunteered to take part in the West Irian liberation struggle. Is the P.A.P. really supporting the Indonesian claim over West Irian? Its attitude has been entirely exposed by the speech of the Minister for Culture. What is invasion? Military invasion? What is the definition of "military invasion" as used by the Minister for Culture? Does it mean that the Indonesians have to use force as a last resort to claim back West Irian? Does it mean that this is the so-called military invasion by the Indonesian people? When a country could not but use force to reclaim its territories, does it mean that this can be termed as a military invasion? Now, who has occupied West Irian? Who has invaded West Irian? According to the logic of the Minister for Culture, India's reclamation of Goa by force is also a kind of military invasion. Does he mean that? If the house of the Minister for Culture has been occupied by other people and he uses the police to take it back, can it be termed as a military invasion?

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): What about P.A.P. branches?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the motion on Algeria tabled by the Minister for Culture had been hypocritical, then his speech on the motion on West Irian must be a reactionary one and a kind of sell-out speech. The people will then see clearly who are really selling out the interests of the people, who are really pro-colonialists, and who are really anti-colonialists in the course of the struggle against the colonialists. The Minister for Home Affairs and his colleagues have already alleged on many occasions that the action of our workers who pasted up posters was against the law and a breach of the regulations. It is a very regrettable matter. This goes to show that they are already deviating from the original course they adopted once upon a time - they are deviating from the people. The people who went out to paste posters in support of West Irian were workers and farmers who had suffered under colonial rule. They understand that the Indonesian struggle against the Dutch over the question of West Irian is closely connected with them, and that was why they took part in putting up posters. On the other hand, as I have just said, they belong to the working class-farmers and workers. They made use of their spare time - after their normal working time; that is to say, in the night time - to go out and paste posters. In actual fact, they did not go out to paste posters in the early hours of the morning. For instance, in Jalan Kayu, a few workers were detained by the police at about 9 p.m. and not at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. in the morning. They were brought to the Paya Lebar Police Station awaiting investigation by the Special Branch. They were kept there up to midnight. So it is the pro-colonialist stand of the P.A.P. that should be blamed; also the bureaucratic attitude of the police. I would like to express my gratitude and admiration to the workers who were arrested. According to reports, some were detained on two occasions for two nights by the police. All this goes to show that in this anti-colonial struggle the reactionary group, in spite of resorting to all methods of suppression, could not suppress the fervour of the people who take part in the anti-colonial struggle.

Last Friday, we heard a speech made by One who appeared to be worse than a Fascist - the Minister for Finance. After hearing his speech, I came to the conclusion that he was worse than a Fascist. He disclosed his true colours in his speech. He said that the Dutch had not derived any benefit from West Irian and that they did not acquire much money; but that, on the other hand, they had to invest a lot of money in building schools, hospitals, roads, and so on. Obviously he was speaking in the same vein as the colonialists. There is no difference between the opinions he holds and those held by the colonialists. [Interruption] If you will refer to the official records, you will then know what he has said. His speech was very puerile and foolish. He has forgotten that the main purpose of the invasion of colonies by the imperialists - such as the French, Portuguese, Belgians and the British - was to carry out economic exploitation with a view to personal benefit. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me give a very simple and practical example to show that the speech of the Minister for Finance was nonsensical and puerile. On 23rd June, 1959, the Financial Times published that the British obtained over œ600 million every year from the colonies. As an economist, the Minister for Finance was not aware of this. How can he explain away this kind of economic exploitation by the colonialists?

Last Friday, he made a speech in which he mentioned the merger forum organised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. He described it as the fifth round with the Barisan Sosialis. In my opinion, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce organised this forum because after the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last year - it was a policy speech on behalf of the Government - the Government did not give any reply to questions raised by civic organisations. Instead the Government continued with its attitude of smearing and giving excuses, as a result of which the representatives at the forum were very dissatisfied with the answers given by the Government. The forum was closely watched by personnel from the Special Branch. The Government sent out personnel from the Special Branch and photographs were taken of all representatives who were allotted special seats. This clearly goes to show that the P.A.P. do not only want to control the Press and the radio but also all civic organisations in order to carry out their retrogressive constitutional arrangements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the reference to the fifth round by the Minister for Finance, we have already seen his true colours. We have been used to his smears in the past. We understand that clearly. Perhaps he would say that the question of West Irian is the sixth round and the question of Malaysia is the seventh round. We are not interested in all this. What We are interested in is that the welfare of the people should not be adversely affected by the so-called fifth or sixth round struggle by the P.A.P.

We of the Barisan Sosialis will try our best to unite our people and to step up our efforts in the anti-colonial struggle.

6.10 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I first moved this motion, I never for one moment thought that the debate would develop in the way t has. It is a simple and straightforward issue. Are we for or against colonialism? Are we for or against the Dutch colonialists on the West Irian issue? It is not as the Member for Tanglin said, more anti or less anti. It is simply anti or not anti. There is no more or less. He has seen the thing wrongly. Of course, the Front Benches of the Opposition do not like to hear things that hurt. They have to run out of the Chamber. It would be better for them not to listen to what I have to say because it is obvious they cannot stand it. Perhaps they know they will not he able to stand it, Speakers after speakers agree that West Irian itself belongs to the Indonesians and that it is a part of Indonesia. Even the Minister for Finance admitted that West Iran should be returned to Indonesia forthwith. Yet all the P.A.P. speakers have advanced reasons and arguments as to why this should not be so. I will come to that later, Sir,In putting forth their views, they have made sure that this simper debate on a clear-cut issue was debated on party lines. They accused us of doing that, but, in actual fact, they themselves are the very people who have debated this issue on party lines. The Members of U.M N.O. say that we are not sincere. Some say we are proud. The Ministers used insulting words, calling us puerile, half-baked anti-colonialists, Communist stooges, hypocrites and a whole host of words which you normally do not allow, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown must know that certain words used in certain contexts may not be offensive or insulting to Members. But I must rely on Members getting up on a point of order, if, in fact, a word is offensive or insulting.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I say has no reflection on the Chair. It happened when you

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that. That is also a reflection on the Chair. Even if I am not in and the reflection is on the Chair.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As I have said, Sir, the issue before the House is a simple one. The motion says, "That this House , expresses admiration for the determination and courage of the Indonesian people and expresses full sympathy with their hopes and aspirations" - just expressing our sympathy and our admiration for the determination and courage and hopes and aspirations of the Indonesian people. There is nothing very much wrong with that. And the motion also "calls upon the people of Singapore to give their wholehearted support to our neighbours and friends, the people of Indonesia, in their just and legitimate struggle against colonial domination". Again, Sir, there is nothing wrong with that. A simple, straightforward issue. When I moved the motion I addressed the House in all solemnity and seriousness. I made it a point to explain to the House that the West Irian issue s an anti-colonial issue. All political Parties that are truly anti-colonial should not have any difficulty, any reservation, any hesitation in supporting the motion. And if they are truly anti-colonial, they should not worry about the question of which Party has moved this motion. If only they are truly anti-colonial and if they are sincere, they should not read into the anti-colonial sentiments more meaning than there is, and meanings which are not there. They should not fear that their support may give credit to the Party that has moved the motion. In fact, we in the Barisan Sosialis make no secret of the fact that we are uncompromisingly anti-colonial, either now or in the future. And if the P.A.P., for example, had moved this motion, we would have given our support unreservedly and without qualification.

But what has happened? All their talk of support for the motion has been introduced with party politics. They bring in a lot of irrelevant matters, and they point to our insincerity. All this only goes to prove the hypocrisy of the P.A.P. Possibly they support the motion as a matter of political expediency, for unfortunately they are forced into a position where they have to support this motion. I will come to that later, Sir,In actual fact, in their heart of hearts, they are not really in support of the motion at all. We are forced to assume this, as there is no other possible explanation for their attitude and behaviour.

The question, as I say, is whether we are pro-colonial or anti-colonial. Are we pro-Dutch or are we pro-Indonesia? It is as simple as that, and they equivocate, they twist and turn, and say, "We support and we do not support." What do they really mean? The U.M.N.O., for example, say that we are insincere and they advance the reason for their so thinking on the fact that we had put up posters late at night. That has already been answered by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. But let me just remind them once more: that as in the P.A.P. in the days of old, our workers are voluntary workers. They can come out to help voluntarily only after they have finished their day's work, and have taken their bath and have had their dinner. But me P.A.P. say that just because these people come out at night, therefore, we are insincere.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Till 1 a.m.!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Surely that is not a good reason for calling us insincere. If it is because of party politics, we can understand why they advance such a reason. They also say that we held the rally in Geylang Serai in order that we might gain Malay support. I must ask: Why not, Sir? What is wrong with that? Why cannot we try to gain and why cannot we fight for Malay support? [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Prime Minister wishes to intervene, he knows how to do so. I think he is off-tune. I think I reminded the Government Benches that the Opposition should be heard in silence.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In this anti-colonial issue, we want the support of everybody. This is not a racial issue. It is an issue clear and simple, repeated again and again, of whether you want to fight against colonialism or not. They may think it is an abstract idea. And to the P.A.P. it is, because they have completely forgotten what anti-colonialism is. The P.A.P. come out with the question of peace or war. As I have said, Sir, the P.A.P. unfortunately have been pushed into a very unfortunate and embarrassing position. First, because the Barisan Sosialis first came out with a statement in support of the Indonesian people on the 28th December, 1961. Second, because the Barisan Sosialis held a rally in Geylang Serai in support of Indonesia's struggle and because the P.A.P. were forced again by circumstances to allow us to hold a rally there. This has to be explained to you, Sir. We have asked for permission -

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of order. Is it in order to suggest that the speaker is moronic and unable to understand?

Mr Speaker: It did not occur to the Speaker that the Speaker is moronic. But these, I suppose, are permissible flowery references to the Speaker, so long, of course, as the Speaker is not dragged into a controversy! Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We ourselves would never dare to disparage or to belitle the Chair in any way, quite unlike some of the people who show supercilious arrogance towards the Chair.

I have said that we want to explain. We have asked for permission to hold rallies in various other areas, and the P.A.P., in search of reasons to prevent our holding such rallies, have said that we can hold rallies only in constituencies where we have Assemblymen. Now we have pointed out how untenable such reasoning is. We have pointed out in our Barisan paper and in our rallies that the U.M.N.O. had held a rally in Kampong Bahru, that the Party Rakyat had held a rally -

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of explanation. It is very important; and to be fair.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let him sit down.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown must not arrogate unto himself the authority of the Chair. If he does not wish to give way he remains standing and the Prime Minister will have to sit down. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was saying, Sir, that the Party Rakyat had recently held a rally in Geylang Serai. And even the Singapore Congress had held a rally sometime back in Mountbatten. They have not got any Assemblymen in those areas. If I could go further back, the P.A.P. itself held rallies in Bukit Panjang, Farrer Park, Shenton Way. All these rallies were permitted, and there were no Assemblymen in those areas. Yet -

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): On a point of clarification.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister for Home Affairs will have an opportunity or can take the opportunity to make a ministerial statement.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All this tells us how ridiculous and dictatorial the P.A.P. has been. I have already given two reasons why the P.A.P. is in that embarrassing position.

The third reason is that the P.A.P. is embarrassed by the fact that the motion is being tabled by their deadly opponents, the Barisan Sosialis. We have shown them up to be completely pro-colonial in their outlook and approach. They have deviated so much to the Right that they do not know what anti-colonialism is all about. In this particular motion, in spite of themselves, they have to support the motion. Otherwise, their secret will be shown up for all to see, and I am sure the Prime Minister does not like that. He would like to keep up the posture that he is still anti-colonial, and he would like to show the people that he is still fighting colonialism.

So, compelled to support this motion, the P.A.P. is now also forced to play politics. They say we are not sincere. They accuse us of playing politics instead, and they adopt the contemptible attitude of making fun, joking, laughing, and smearing - an air of light-heartedness, frivolity and ridicule. Looking at their feces, Sir, you can see hypocrisy written all over them. We are deciding a very serious issue, Sir, and see what they do - they laugh! Is that the respect that we want to show to the Indonesian people?

The Prime Minister: No, but to the volunteers of the Barisan. Are you a volunteer?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We will come to that. Of course, in order to show that they are anti-colonial, they also bring up their pet subject of Communism. They do so first by belittling our Geylang Serai rally. They harped on the fact that there were only about 5,000 people and that we had to shepherd-in unions in order to form a crowd. Sir, we have had pictures taken of the rally. For the edification of the House and you, we can easily see that from only one section of the crowd - that is here - [indicating] the most conservative estimate on this picture alone would be 8,000. We ourselves have estimated the crowd to be 10,000 but there are other people who have estimated the crowd to be anywhere between 12,000 and 15,000. The Prime Minister should have seen the traffic congestion there. If he had gone there, he would not have been able to pass through. That alone should show what happened. The P.A.P. would not dare hold a rally like that.

A little while ago, they made some frivolous jokes about volunteers. I remember the Deputy Prime Minister saying something about suckling babes. Sir, the Member for Thomson has already mentioned that the three lady volunteers whom they poked fun of, were not, as far as we know, members of the Barisan Sosialis. I personally do not know the three ladies concerned. But we take strong exception to the ridicule which Members of the Government Party have showered on these volunteers. By this very fact alone, the P.A.P. have proved to the House that they are not sincere at all in the way they talk of supporting this motion. By the manner in which they ridicule these volunteers, they have already shown that they are not friendly towards the Indonesian people.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. Can the Member be allowed to make fantastic allegations of our hostility to our neighbour when the declaration stands in the joint names of the First Minister of Indonesia and myself pledging our friendship and our support of West Irian?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. I think the Prime Minister has made his point. A different opinion apparently has been expressed by the Member for Queenstown. He is entitled to his opinion. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will also make an observation about that joint statement of his later. The question to ask the P.A.P., under the circumstances, is, will they also adopt the same attitude if the people start a campaign to help and support the struggle in South Vietnam? Will they do the same thing?

The Prime Minister: What same thing?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Do the P.A.P. think it all so funny? Will they also adopt the same attitude if they should start a campaign to help Ngo Dinh Diem?

An hon. Member: Who is starting?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, it is perfectly natural for people who feel deeply about certain things to volunteer for service in West Irian, especially when the issue has turned into a burning issue. It is unnatural, to say the least, to stop this inevitable political process in spite of what the P.A.P. have said and will say. It does not take the Barisan Sosialis to incite them to volunteer, in fact, so far as we know, popular sentiment as regards West Irian has existed long before now. And if the Prime Minister does not take my statement as the genuine truth, I am sure he can inquire from the Indonesian Consulate whether there have indeed been volunteers showing readiness to help the Indonesian people as regards the West Irian issue. It is as simple as that. Why must they link it up with this and that, and twist and turn it into something sinister? In fact, I might mention that there are other people who feel agitated over the West Irian issue. For instance, the Member for Geylang Serai himself has told us that he felt so deeply about the matter that he helped to run guns for the freedom fighters. Things like this have happened long, long before. They keep on asking why we ourselves do not volunteer when we talk of supporting the anti-colonial struggle in West Irian. Sir, this is a very vicious question. After all, let me remind the P.A.P. that they themselves had held rallies in support of the Algerian struggle and in support of the condemnation of the murder of Lumumba. Did they at any time suggest to themselves that they should go and fight in the Congo or in Algeria? Did the Prime Minister do that? The P.A.P. want the 13 Assemblymen to volunteer. They are even willing to draw out funds from the P.A.P. for the first one hundred volunteers from the Barisan Sosialis and they would join the merry chorus and say, "Bon voyage." Let me tell them this, Sir. This is no joking matter to the 96 million Indonesian people. The time may come when everybody will have to undergo heavy sacrifices. Families may be torn apart. Fathers may have to mourn for sons. Wives may have to mourn for husbands, sisters for brothers, and friends may never meet again. Do they think that it is such a frivolous matter that they have to laugh about it? Do they dare to laugh in the face of the Indonesian people? Let them laugh that out.

I repeat what the Member for Thomson has said, Sir. Even if they do not want to respect the mover of the motion, even if they do not want to respect the Barisan Sosialis, at least let them pay some respect to the Indonesian people. The West Irian issue is not a simple, joking matter to them. Recently, President Soekarno was almost assassinated. That is no joking matter. I was hoping that Members opposite would join with me and say, "What a barbaric thing it was." But instead they poked fun. They ridiculed. Volunteers from Singapore or from anywhere for that matter, will not make much, material difference to what is happening in Indonesia. The Indonesians have nearly 100 million people against Holland's meagre 10 million, or less than that. They could just swarm over them. A few hundred or a few thousand from Singapore will not make any difference to the numerical strength of Indonesia. But we admire these volunteers for their noble gesture. It is this noble gesture, Sir, that goes to give moral support to the Indonesian people. That is all we ask for. Not material strength from Members of the Government Benches. As far as I can see with regard to some Members, a strong wind can blow them off the ground. They cannot even stand upright. No wonder, the Member for Geylang Serai said that the debate was an embarrassment to the Indonesian people. Because, after the Prime Minister had signed that solemn document of support two years ago, the Government now has turned round and made fun of our friends who are hoping for a gesture of support. We get derogatory remarks from the Government Benches about people getting senile, needing gimmicks. We in the Barisan Sosialis definitely do not need gimmicks and we are not senile. Everybody in Singapore knows that. I would not like to compare, Sir. Comparisons are odious, they say, and it may be mistaken as an arrogant attitude on our part when we say how strong we are as against the P.A.P. But the whole of Singapore knows exactly what is happening.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of order. Has that got anything to do with the motion itself?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is replying seriatim to the allegations which have been made. He is perfectly in order. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Thank you, Sir. Just now the Prime Minister was referring to the document which he signed with the First Minister of Indonesia, Dr Djuanda. Reference has already been made to it by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. But the point I want to make is this. The joint statement was drafted by Mr S. Woodhull in conjunction with the Indonesian officials, and - now this is important - it included the West Irian issue. And when the Prime Minister heard that the West Irian issue was included in the statement, he was very, very unhappy. It is unfortunate that I have to mention this, Sir.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of elucidation.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All this shows that the P.A.P., in their support of the motion, have not been sincere. If they had been, they would have held a rally in support of Indonesia too. You will remember that we held a rally in support of the Algerian struggle and we also held a rally in condemnation of the murder of Lumumba. Of course, at that time, there was the Hong Lim by-election which was about to come on. In answer to the charge that the P.A.P. had lost all anti-colonial fervour, the P.A.P. were compelled to dig up something to show that they were not pro-colonial and had not lost their anti-colonial fervour.

At this point, Sir, I might say I felt very unhappy and sorry that the Prime Minister had again thought it good politics to make fun of the name of Lumumba. We do not hold brief for any particular person, but the name Lumumba today is held in high esteem by all the people who are taking part in the anti-colonial struggle. But what did our Prime Minister say? If he gave consent to naming anything after the name Lumumba, he said, it would be a circus. Such derogatory remarks from a Prime Minister of a so-called elected people's government is very, very hard to believe. All these remarks show up the actual nature of the P.A.P., and also incidentally why we left the P.A.P. So you see the P.A.P. actually support this motion Just to suit themselves, as I have demonstrated all along. But here is where the fun starts. Having supported the anti-colonial struggle of the Indonesian people in spite of themselves, the P.A.P. leaders have now to explain their inconsistent stand, in other words, they have to rationalise their inconsistencies and contradictions. The Minister for Culture says the P.A.P. support the Indonesian struggle over West Irian because they support the same principle as they support the principle of Malaysia. He makes great play of the words "Malaysia is historically inevitable; and similarly, because reunification between West Irian and Indonesia is historically inevitable, therefore, the P.A.P. support the Indonesian people in their struggle to recover West Irian." I say this to the Government Ministers sitting opposite: "Go and tell that to the Marines, the Dutch Marines!"

Mr Rajaratnam: Not the Dutchmen of Malaysia?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: First, let me debunk this "inevitable" theory of the Minister for Culture. If inevitability were to be carried to its logical conclusion, then one would have expected that they would include Indonesia in this matter. I am not getting into the controversy of Malaysia, how it should be or should not be. But if they want to argue, if they want to use the word "inevitable", then let us say the inevitable conclusion is that there will be a merger - a union of a much larger unit, and it includes Indonesia. Is that what the Minister for Culture says? Is that the logic? Are those the dialectics of the P.A.P.? Of course, the Minister for Finance knows that it is all nonsense. So he quickly tries to turn the attention of the people to the stand of the Barisan Sosialis instead, and attempts to show the so-called inconsistencies and contradictions in our stand as regards Malaysia and West Irian. He says in the case of Malaysia, we ask for consultations, control of internal security, self-determination and general elections. And he asks, why do we not ask the same in the case of West Irian? Sir, the trouble with the P.A.P. is that in their dictatorship and supercilious arrogance, their leaders have mistaken the wood for the trees. They have deviated so far from the original stand that they now cannot distinguish friend from foe, and foe from friend. They have lost the anti-colonial fervour, as I have said, and they try to masquerade their true nature. They use catch phrases of inevitability of this and inevitability of that, because they know such words are used by real Leftists. They do not see the West Irian issue as an anti-colonial issue. They do not see it as an issue of the struggle of oppressed peoples against the colonialists and the imperialists. They do not see that it is part of a global struggle. To us, it is just as simple as that. And either they do not see it or, if they see it, purposely twist it, purposely pretend not to see it, refuse to see it. It is just an issue of the people fighting against colonialism and in our support, we want to add, as I have indicated in my speech when I moved the motion, our small voice to that of the world forum of more than half the people of the world. Is there anything wrong in that? There is no similarity between Malaysia and the West Irian issue. In the case of West Irian -

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Sir, I was outside the Chamber and did not wish to interrupt the Member for Queenstown. He stated that the joint declaration on West Irian signed by Dr Djuanda and myself was an insertion of a draft by Mr Sandra Woodhull. As a point of order, I would like now to ask you when I could make a statement in this Chamber to clarify this, because I think this is a matter of some grave importance and one should not in matters of inter-State relations make so mischievous a statement.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. But I take it the Prime Minister could allege that he is being misunderstood in some material part of his speech, and the Standing Order is:

`A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer an explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not introduce any new matter.'

So that when the Member for Queenstown has completed his speech, the Prime Minister may make his clarification.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was trying to explain that there is no similarity between Malaysia and the West Irian issue. In the case of West Irian, complete sovereignty of the whole of the Dutch East Indies was transferred to the Indonesian people at a round-table conference in the Hague in August 1949. The ceremonial transfer was effected in December 1949, the same year, and the transfer of sovereignty was unconditional and irrevocable.

The Member for Anson referred to the International Court of Justice in his argument. But we in the Barisan Sosialis are not lawyers and we are not arguing in any court of law. We only deal with general principles and, to us, the issue is simply one of driving out colonialism and of restoring national sovereignty and national integrity. In the case of the proposed Malaysia, the Borneo territories are all separate. If Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak are to form some sort of union from separate entities, then the people in these areas must decide. If the P.A.P.'s argument for unification is that all these separate territories are under the same British flag, if that is the only logical contention they have, then I must ask them, what about other areas - what about Hongkong, Malta, Aden? They are all under the same British flag. Similarly. Sir, I take it that Indonesia Cannot claim Dutch Guiana in South America, because they are all separate. They do not claim territories just because they happen to be under the same flag.

Another difference which I would like to stress between Malaysia and the West Irian issue is this. Indonesia recovers West Irian as part of Indonesia and the West Irians are going to be treated as as equal brothers and sisters of other Indonesians and not as outcasts, and the West Irians will be given, as we can see from the pronouncements by the Indonesian authorities, full citizenship and political freedom. This is not what will happen in Malaysia. As far as Singapore is concerned, we will not be given full citizenship and we will not be given political freedom. Where is the similarity? In fact, I would say there is a contrast.

Let me just touch briefly on this self-determination which the Minister for Culture and the Prime Minister talk so much about. Just like the word "merger", Sir, the word "determination" has been twisted out of shape by the P.A.P. The principle of self-determination is raised and supported by the Dutch for two reasons. One, to encourage the formation of a puppet State and, two, to prevent the reunification of West Irian with Indonesia. That is, to sabotage Indonesian territorial integrity and sovereignty, and therefore, it is a pro-colonial move. The Barisan Sosialis wants self-determination for entirely different reasons. Self-determination is to allow us, even you included, Mr Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not as yet aspired to the position of Prime Minister. I think the Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I should have said you. Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. That embroils the Speaker in the debate and I think that is not fair to the Chair.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, Sir, the Barisan wants self-determination for entirely different reasons - self-determination to allow us, a colonial people, an opportunity to have freedom from colonialism and to achieve unification.

The Prime Minister: So the Papuans are not a colonial people.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is, it is a completely anti-colonial move. One is pro-colonial, and the other is anti-colonial! Do you see the difference, Sir? Surely the brains of the P.A.P. can see the difference. [Interruption] Sir, we have been called many names before - opportunists, pro-Communists, Communist front men, the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation -

An hon. Member: It is true.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and even Dutchmen. Smear tactics are not new, Sir. They are the time-worn familiar tactics of the colonialists, and such smear tactics are treated with the contempt they deserve. But whatever it is, one thing is certain. We cannot be Communists and pro-Communists and Dutchmen at the same time.

The Prime Minister: Why not? There are Dutch Communists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I would ask the PAP, to make up their minds first - Dutchmen or Communists?

An hon. Member: Dutchmen.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: At least they should be consistent in their name-calling and smears, if not in their policies and programmes. They should try to he consistent one way or the other.

The Prime Minister: The Member may not be -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must not be disorderly. He knows the Standing Order. If the Member does not give way, he cannot speak. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No one in Singapore will ever believe that we can be Dutchmen who are pro-colonialists and imperialists. It is a laughable matter. Nobody will believe it.

The Prime Minister: That is the tragedy of it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On the one hand, the Dutch are colonialists occupying other people's territory by force -

The Prime Minister: The British are not, eh?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and hoping to persist in their imperialist policy of divide and rule by force. We in the Barisan Sosialis -

The Prime Minister: Welcome the British rule here.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - are uncompromisingly anti-colonial and though a mere Opposition Party with no power whatsoever are nevertheless struggling for genuine unity and reunification of the territories. Yes, that reminds me, what of the P.A.P.? What are they? I think they are worse than Dutchmen. At least the Dutch are open colonialists and open imperialists. But the P.A.P. -

Mr Rajaratnam: They are Russians.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - are a sham. They are helping the colonial forces to impose Malaysia on the people. They are helping to impose on the people some constitutional arrangement that will not give equality, justice, democracy, unity and independence to the people. [Interruption] They are only helping to impose colonialism in a new guise. As we are part of Afro-Asia - he cannot stand it; he has to run away.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Queenstown makes provocative remarks like that, I do not wonder that he is interrupted time and again in his speech. A Member is entitled to walk out of this Chamber with decorum, and I think any Member who passes provocative remarks about a Member who is walking out of this Chamber is disorderly himself.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I apologise, Sir. Anyway, as part of Afro-Asia, we in Singapore should adopt an entirely different attitude, but the P.A.P. are not doing that, and therefore they are worse than Dutchmen. They can be said to be -

Mr Rajaratnam: Russians.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - Tshombes, Syngman Rhees, Ngo Dinh Diems and Chiang Kai-sheks. That is what they are. That is why the P.A.P. are supporting this Malaysia scheme together with -

Mr Rajaratnam: Chiang Kai-shek.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - the British colonialists and other Right-wing forces. But before I close on this theme, one last word on this "inevitability", and that is this. One thing is inevitable in the next general elections - the P.A.P. will be out and the Ministers will be jobless.

Sir, it is sometimes a little entertaining to listen to the Minister for Finance to see how he ties himself into knots and contradictions. You will remember he agreed that West Irian should go back to the Indonesians. He ridiculed the volunteers, saying that it is nonsense to fight, and yet he came out with a thesis that force would have to be used if no other way was possible. Then the Deputy Prime Minister came out with his plea for a peaceful settlement. I was most touched by what he said, and we all share with him those sentiments. I said as much in my opening speech. Probably when the Deputy Prime Minister said that, he did not hear me when I first addressed the House on this issue. I said that we all hope for a peaceful settlement, and we hope that those "first" shots will be the "last" shots. As we have seen in the newspapers, even the Indonesian people themselves, through Major-General Jani, Chief of West Irian Liberation Operation Staff, have also expressed their hope that some peaceful solution will come out of the West Irian dispute. But I think we should be very clear on one point. However the dispute may develop in Indonesia and West Irian, it is entirely the affair of the Indonesians themselves. We on our part can only hope for peace. We cannot say that the settlement must be by peace or that it must be by war. Whatever the method the Indonesian people themselves choose, we, as outsiders, have no say on the matter. If the Indonesian people think that force has to be used, well, that is what it should be. If they think that force is necessary, who are we to say. "No, you just put down your guns and be shot at by the Dutch." Surely, that is not what the P.A.P. are advocating. Therefore, we are not inciting any one at all when we ask for support for the Indonesians. We should not be blind to realities. The Dutch - as the Member for Thomson has said - have been holding on to West Irian by force. If in the final resort, when patience has been completely exhausted, as in the case of Goa, the Indonesian people take up arms to force the imperialists out of West Irian, then I say that we support the Indonesian people. The issue is very clear: whether we support the Indonesian people under those circumstances, or we support the Dutch. Let the House declare itself straightaway there. It is a simple decision and there is no need to argue on it.

The Deputy Prime Minister has accused us of making fierce speeches, shouting empty slogans and inciting the people to volunteer for something which they do not understand. He says he knows what war is. I do not know, Sir,I know that the Member for Anson knows what war is. He was a prisoner of war. I do not think anyone on the Government Front Benches knows anything about war. They do not know what war is. But I can tell them that I know what war is.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear! Tell them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do know about war not only in Singapore, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear! Where else do you know about war?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was up in Kanchanaburi - the death railway, Sir,I was there for about nine months, and then I finally came back. We had to push trains for more than two weeks before we could come back. We had to push trains - not sitting in trains - over wrecked bridges. The first thing when we arrived in Kanchanaburi - I can get witnesses to prove it - we were nearly bombed to smithereens. We were very lucky. We escaped the bombing by about 10 or 15 minutes. I just want to tell the P.A.P. - it is not that I want to talk about it, Sir - that we know what war is - not the Deputy Prime Minister whose only war experience consisted of carrying bed-pans. That is not war experience. For a person who was merely mewling and puking in a nurse's arms - as it were - to try to tell people who have war experience about war, is laughable.

The Prime Minister: You are a stooge of the British then, are you?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Deputy Prime Minister made a plea that there should be no war. The Minister for Finance contradicted him by saying that when it became necessary he did not mind war. He did not mind war if it was a quick one - if it was going to be a blitzkrieg. He would mind if the war was protracted. Under those circumstances, he thought the Indonesian people would suffer and that the Indonesian economy would not be able to stand up to the strain. That is the thesis of the Minister for Finance. Of course, when they come to that, they must link it up with the Barisan Sosialis. The Minister for Finance quoted the other day, and the Prime Minister himself quoted again tonight, passages from the speech made by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis at the mass rally held in Geylang Serai two Sundays ago. They want to give the impression that the Barisan Sosialis advocates violence, because then it will all link up with their smear campaign that the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation. The Prime Minister quoted almost the same passages which the Minister for Finance quoted the other night. But let me tell them this. In their quotations, they made sure that they twisted and distorted the whole thing. Paragraphs were quoted out of context; in one paragraph they quoted only the second half. I will only mention three paragraphs in this paper from which the Prime Minister has quoted today, and I will show how he has tried to give a false and distorted impression to the people. One - may I read the passage in Mandarin, Sir, and it is also from the same paper which he quoted:

(Assembly Interpreter's version in English): `Indonesia is a peace loving and neutral strong force in South-East Asia. India is the same and so is Burma. Cambodia and Ceylon are also the same.'

This passage was not quoted, but the following words were quoted - the words which I will now read - by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: No mention was made of it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And these are the words:

(Assembly Interpreter's version in English): `South-East Asia is becoming from day to day a peace-loving territory. The Western bloc in Laos and South Korea have their puppet governments whose powers are going from bad to worse, and they are meeting with more and more difficulties. The West and the pro-colonialist countries are afraid of and dissatisfied with the neutral and free people countries who are peace-loving for their influence in this region.'

I will give my own translation. I am not very good at it, but this will do, I think. It says, `Indonesia is a great force for peace and neutrality in South-East Asia. India is the same; Burma also, Ceylon and Cambodia.' And the rest [Interruption] And therefore, there was a definite distortion in what the Prime Minister has said. And I wish to correct that distortion.

The second quotation which I would like to bring to your notice, Sir, is this, and I wilt read. These are me same words but his interpretation is entirely different.

(Assembly Interpreter's version in English): `Colonialism cannot depend on any constitutional arrangements from top to bottom to be ended in this way.'

He made it to mean, and he made great play of the translation given by the Interpreter, that "Colonialism cannot be" -

The Prime Minister: Settled or ended.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All right. "- settled or ended by constitutional means". Now, that is a wrong translation, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Point of order, Sir,Is the Member allowed to quarrel with an Interpreter of this Assembly?

Mr Speaker: I am not the judge as to what is the correct interpretation. That will come later on, I take it, when points are raised on the matter. Now, if the Member for Queenstown indicates what his translation is, then perhaps we can compare. I do not know what his translation is yet.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will endeavour to give you the translation, Sir. And you can confirm this with the Interpreter again. The translation is this: `That colonialism will not be finished by constitutional imposition, by people who are sitting on the top.' In other words, colonialism cannot be ended by manipulation of constitutional arrangements by people who happen to control power. That is exactly what it means.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information. Where are those words -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Those few words are -

Mr Speaker: Order. This is getting to be a "brawling" house. Let us have some order. The Member for Queenstown now has the Floor. Let us hear what he has to say.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The few words, Sir, I will read it in Mandarin. It is:

(Assembly Interpreter's version In English): `From top to bottom.'

The literal translation is: "From top to bottom." And it means "imposition from above, something imposed on the people." That is the actual meaning and not just constitutional arrangements. I do not know the standard of Chinese of the Prime Minister, but I can easily say that mine is better, and definitely much better than that of the Minister for Finance! There is no running away from it. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So that again proves how the Prime Minister has distorted and twisted the meaning of simple words to suit his meaning.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a very serious point of order. Is it proper for the Member to say that I distorted the interpretation of that word when I carefully repeated what the Interpreter said those words meant? I read it out. The Interpreter read it. I heard it over the interpretation. I just repeated what the Interpreter said. I am not vying with the Member for Queenstown as a linguist of the Sino-English language. I just repeated what the Interpreter said.

Mr Speaker: It seems to me to be a very important point and, therefore, I think the Member for Queenstown is entitled to say what his interpretation is. It has been made quite an issue of in this debate. I think we must leave it at that and let those who read the record make up their own minds.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On another point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. I have read this particular passage in question, and I too have sought the opinion of people whose standard of education in Chinese is not only higher than mine but also higher than that of the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: The point of order being?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The point of order being this: that where there is a difference of interpretation of what the words mean, how could the Assembly, as an Assembly, get authoritative opinion on what those words mean, so that we will not be misled by the individual's interpretation, to my mind even the eccentric interpretation put forward by the Member for Queenstown?

Mr Speaker: As far as I can assist in this matter, the official record will not have the Mandarin words, but will have the interpreted version, the Prime Minister's version -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Order. When the Prime Minister read those passages, he said he would give his own interpretation of them. Members can see whether his interpretation corresponds with the interpretation of the Interpreter. The Interpreters have a very difficult job, and I have allowed the interpretation of those passages because it seems to me to be a very important matter. All we have then is the Official Record which will place before the reader the interpretation as propounded not only by the Prime Minister but also by the Interpreters, and also the interpretation as propounded by the Member for Queenstown, and again by the Interpreters as the Member for Queenstown read that passage.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is very simple explanation, Sir. I think anybody who knows Chinese will come to the same conclusion as I have in my explanation to you.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Member for Queenstown is entitled to say that at this juncture. All he can say is that that is his interpretation. He cannot say whether his interpretation is right or the Prime Minister's interpretation is right.

The Prime Minister: That is best.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Very well, Sir. I will then come to the third point which I want to raise about the quotation and it is this. The Prime Minister quoted the last part of it - two or three sentences - and omitted to quote the preceding two or three sentences. I will first quote what the Prime Minister quoted. He quoted:

(Assembly Interpreter's version in English): `All of us are peace loving.'

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have read that.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - `But let all see clearly that we love freedom all the more.'

He interpreted these words to mean that we advocate violence. Let me now quote the preceding two sentences. That will help to clarify any doubts that we may have on this issue.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We have no doubts.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And the words are as follows, Sir,I will read first in Mandarin, and then I will give you my translation of it.

(Assembly interpreter's version in English): `We do not want to make use of force to achieve our ends. We hope that we can avoid using arms. We are all peace-loving. Let all see clearly that we love freedom all the more.'

The translation will read as follows: `We do not want to use force to achieve our objective. We hope we can avoid using force. We all love peace -'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: But we love freedom more.

Mr Speaker: I cannot understand Members on the Government Bench at all. I am trying to follow this argument and I find it very difficult if there is a running commentary from the Government Benches. As I have indicated, the Government speakers have been heard in silence. Then let the Member for Queenstown be heard in silence. Could the Member commence his translation again?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: `But let us make it very clear. We love freedom even more.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What is the use of it?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister for Finance is now becoming very disorderly. He is disregarding the authority of the Chair. I have certain powers and I do not want to use those powers. He must not disregard the authority of the Chair. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As mentioned by the Member for Choa Chu Kang, these words, Sir, are words not spoken by an ordinary mortal. They are the words of President Soekarno himself. He made it very clear that "We love freedom even more under any circumstances." These are sentiments also expressed by us in the Barisan Sosialis. And I am sure every right-thinking man will also express the same sentiments.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No. I do not want to add much more, Sir. I will wind up. The issue is very clear and the lesson also is very clear. The -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is the point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Queenstown is misleading the House when he says that those are the sentiments of President Soekarno. My pint of order is this: the words that are being quoted here are the words of the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis and not a quotation from the speech of President Soekarno.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: The Minister for Finance perhaps never heard the Member for Queenstown correctly. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was telling the House, Sir, that the issue is clear and the lesson is also very cleat. The West Irian issue is part of a global struggle of oppressed peoples against colonialism. Some people seem to believe that colonialism is already dead. According to the Prime Minister, the back-seat driver is no more there. But we know the back-seat driver is still there. Colonialism is not dead. This has been proved by what is happening in Algeria, the Cameroons, the Congo, Angola, Northern Rhodesia, Kenya, recently Goa and now West Irian. The lesson is that colonialism will not retreat of its own accord. In order to gain our freedom, equality, justice, democracy, progress and prosperity, we must keep up a relentless struggle against colonialism. We want a peaceful settlement whenever possible. In the present West Irian issue, the peaceful overtures of the Indonesians have been met with force from the intransigent Dutch colonialists. Under the circumstances, we, like more than half of the people in the world, and like the United Arab Republic and others, wish to express our admiration for the courage and determination of the Indonesian people. We call on all in Singapore to support the Indonesian people in their just and legitimate struggle.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of explanation?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was not in this Assembly for the express purpose of not interrupting the Member for Queenstown, I was informed that the Member for Choa Chu Kang alleged that the draft of the joint statement made by Dr Djuanda and myself was the work of Mr Woodhull and the Member for Upper Serangoon. The Member for Queenstown subsequently alleged that the draft statement was done by Mr Woodhull and an Indonesian official and that I was very unhappy when I discovered that the draft includes West Irian. Mr Speaker, Sir, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Member for Upper Serangoon, who is alleged to have known what took place, did not have the temerity himself to say this in this Chamber, but had done so via the Member for Choa Chu Kang who cannot claim he knew anything about it. All I need say is that I have not known, either the Member for Upper Serangoon or Mr Sandra Woodhull to have ever expressed any desire as was stated in the memorandum that there should be a peaceful settlement in the West Irian dispute. This is an utter misrepresentation of what took place. I am sorry that both the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Queenstown, who knew nothing of these matters, have lent credence to a completely irresponsible falsehood.

Question put.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, Nil; Absent, 6; Abstentions, 5. Ayes. Abstentions. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Buang bin Haji Jumat. Omar Junid. Ahmad Jabri bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammad Akib. Chan Chee Seng. Lim Yew Hock. Chan Choy Siong, Mohamed Ali bin Madam. Alwi. Chan Sun Wing. Seow Peck Leng, Chor Yeok Eng. Mrs. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Absent. Goh Chew Chua. Ahmad bin Goh Keng Swee. Ibrahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Koh. C. H. Madam. Marshall, David. Kandasamy, G. Rajah, A. P. Lee Khoon Choy. Ramaswamy. S. Lee Kuan Yew. Thio Chan Bee. Lee Sew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Noes. Leong Keng Seng. Nil. Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Lingam. S V. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Mohd Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Klan. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Fog Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Ayes.- contd. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Prime Minister is prepared to enter on his motion now or whether it would be convenient to adjourn.

The Prime Minister: As the House wishes.

Mr Speaker: I am suggesting from the Chair that it is convenient to adjourn.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Dr Toh.